[HOT] Quick question on village mapping
andrew.r.buck at gmail.com
Wed Oct 28 11:39:58 UTC 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I usually go with a node just because it is a bit more resilliant in
case of odd situations. For example a town/village that is multiple
clusters of buildings separated by a river or some other feature. For
these a node is the only option unless you want to multipolygon the areas.
As for putting it on the area, it does make it a bit easier to
calculate the size of the village in something like GIS software,
however assosciating the nodes/areas is a simple spatial query anyway
so I think the node still probably makes more sense.
On 10/28/2015 04:53 AM, Pete Masters wrote:
> Hi all,
> If you are adding field data to an existing shape
> (landuse=residential), would you tag the shape as place=village /
> name=whatever or would you add a node and tag the node.
> I've generally done the latter, but am seeing quite a few villages
> in Chad that conform to the former.
> Is there a best practice here?
> _______________________________________________ HOT mailing list
> HOT at openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the HOT