<html><head></head><body><div class="ydpd0065dd3yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><div><div>On Feb 11 18 h 49 min 26 s UTC−5,
Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
</div><div><br><br></div></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><div><div>> ??? just do not create unreasonably large multipolygons (or split existing, <br></div><div>> possibly undo import if it makes area uneditable and do it right).</div></div><div><br></div></div></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Your answer seems to be that it is possible to map appropriately with the current rules. Or maybe not, but anyway, let simply ignore these areas, not find appropriate solution to add these areas to OSM. For north of Canada alone, <span>the superficy is closed to the size of Europe</span>.<br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Your answer about polygons is simply a spin rethoric form (une pirouette) to ignore the problem. Should we rename this project OpenEurope ?</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><span style="font-style:italic;color:rgb(0, 0, 191);font-weight:bold;"><font style="background-color: inherit;" face="garamond, new york, times, serif">Pierre </font><br></span></div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="ydp4b5468f8yahoo_quoted_2402220755" class="ydp4b5468f8yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
Le mardi 11 février 2020 18 h 49 min 26 s UTC−5, Mateusz Konieczny via talk <talk@openstreetmap.org> a écrit :
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div id="ydp4b5468f8yiv1756955974"><div>
<div><br clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>Feb 12, 2020, 00:07 by talk@openstreetmap.org:<br clear="none"></div><blockquote class="ydp4b5468f8yiv1756955974tutanota_quote" style="border-left:1px solid #93A3B8;padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px;"><div class="ydp4b5468f8yiv1756955974" style="font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Feb 11, 15:59, stevea wrote :<br clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><span>> Rather than get snarled in counter-examples, let's discuss how OTG isn't
and can't be strictly </span><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><span>> followed in many cases. It IS followed in the
majority of cases, but in those corner cases where </span><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><span>> it isn't, because it
can't be ("nothing" is OTG), must be realistically addressed, likely in
our wiki </span><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><span>> where we state the "rule" today, though going forward much
better state a "guideline". I think </span><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><span>> we can get there, but it remains
under discussion / construction.</span><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><div><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">I agree with this and I adds some other aspects to take into account below. The areas not yet mapped in OSM have characteristics quite different than the industrialiased regions / countries. And we cannot realistically count on mappers to walk or cycle through huge isolated areas. We cannot expect people that figth to survive, that have no good internet connexion to map intensively there neighboorhood. And more then mappers, we need to think where we need to revise OSM. <br clear="none"></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Note that it is not violating OTG. OTG is not "everything must be mapped on survey", it means<br clear="none"></div><div>that direct survey (what is actually existing) overrides official data, opinions and desires.<div class="ydp4b5468f8yiv1756955974yqt0734150930" id="ydp4b5468f8yiv1756955974yqtfd32570"><br clear="none"></div></div><blockquote class="ydp4b5468f8yiv1756955974tutanota_quote" style="border-left:1px solid #93A3B8;padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px;"><div class="ydp4b5468f8yiv1756955974" style="font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="ydp4b5468f8yiv1756955974yqt0734150930" id="ydp4b5468f8yiv1756955974yqtfd74893">If we could keep the wood landcover outside of OSM, it would greatly simplify mapping of such areas and dramatically reduce the Mulipolygons problems where huge multipolygons are created with inner for lakes and all the problems related to this.</div><br clear="none"></div></div></div></blockquote><div>??? just do not create unreasonably large multipolygons (or split existing, possibly undo import<br clear="none"></div><div>if it makes area uneditable and do it right).<div class="ydp4b5468f8yiv1756955974yqt0734150930" id="ydp4b5468f8yiv1756955974yqtfd28094"><br clear="none"></div></div><div class="ydp4b5468f8yiv1756955974yqt0734150930" id="ydp4b5468f8yiv1756955974yqtfd03400"> </div></div></div><div class="ydp4b5468f8yqt0734150930" id="ydp4b5468f8yqtfd86036">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">talk mailing list<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br clear="none"></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>