<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/20/20 6:19 PM, Mike Thompson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALJoUkutEqHomwvGeE_VskVKE_wdL8i6_n1zDj4QFMp3L_DCyw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:45 PM stevea
<<a href="mailto:steveaOSM@softworkers.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">steveaOSM@softworkers.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> I think we need both as well. I've been doing this while
watching the evolution of how we best do this as I participate
in a "do our best, always better" efforts to accomplish this.
Even now!<br>
><br>
> The idea of the first kind is simply a relation with a
focus on the / a polygon with the outer (-most) membership.
The idea of the second kind is one of these plus a carefully
crafted inner membership, often made up of a complex inholding
distribution containing many sometimes complex themselves
inner polygons.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Thanks Steve for your insightful
comments.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">I was thinking just create separate
polygons for inholdings, tagged with access=private and
possibly ownership=private</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Mike<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
I think its simpler and better to just create an inner boundary as
was done with the Coconino NF
</body>
</html>