<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/12/2019 11:59, Gareth L wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:VI1P18901MB0016B12F996411EEA2793F5DD6510@VI1P18901MB0016.EURP189.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I’m all for using a polygon per field, but am unsure what to do at the boundaries. Do I make 2 field polygons meet? Or leave a gap as there’s a track/hedge/fence/small coppice/ ditch/drain ? I’m probably not going to be able to map the boundary particularly accurately in a first pass, so would rather omit than put in inaccurate barriers
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>If it helps, here's what I tend to do:</p>
<ul>
<li>Firstly, I only tend to add farmland etc. after I've added
fences, walls, ditches, gates, bits of woodland etc. (it's just
easier that way around).</li>
<li>If the crop extends right up to the hedge, I'd tend to have
the hedge sharing nodes with both fields.</li>
<li>If there's a ditch, track or other separating feature I'd try
and draw the hedges either side (if they exist) and have the
farmland not sharing nodes with the ditch but with the hedge (if
it exists). Similarly I wouldn't attach farmland to roads.</li>
<li>If there's an uncultivated strip around the edge of the field
I wouldn't tend to include that in the "field". Similarly if an
area is left as scrub (perhaps to wet for crops), I'd map as
scrub.</li>
</ul>
<p>None of this is definitive - people have different approaches.
If you want examples of the above, have a look in my changeset
history from > 3 months ago in the East Riding of Yorkshire for
example <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/75049826">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/75049826</a> etc.</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:VI1P18901MB0016B12F996411EEA2793F5DD6510@VI1P18901MB0016.EURP189.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM"></blockquote>
</body>
</html>