[Tagging] geology taggin?

Ulf Lamping ulf.lamping at googlemail.com
Tue Nov 16 03:10:30 GMT 2010


Am 16.11.2010 02:57, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Ulf Lamping<ulf.lamping at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>> Am 16.11.2010 00:57, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
>>> 2010/11/15 Ulf Lamping<ulf.lamping at googlemail.com>:
>>>> The whole "nature_reserve as an area" is broken.
>>>
>>> it is clearly an area. What else should it be? All boundaries delimit
>>> areas.
>>
>> Yes, germany is basically also an area. Some people think it's a good idea
>> to not tag this as an area but using a boundary way / relation.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon
> "The multipolygon relation is OpenStreetMap's area data type."

Which is - well - just wrong. The closedway is the traditional way of 
OSMs data type for an area and the multipolygon is the modern way if the 
traditional model doesn't fit well. Most people in OSM will model e.g. 
most buildings with a closedway and not with a multipolygon (unless 
necessary). Both would be possible and both are an area.

> Are you done being pedantic?

Sorry, you've missed the point.

Maybe this should better read: The whole "nature_reserve as a closedway" 
is broken.

Obivously nature_reserve is an area (however you model it). But it's 
usually an area more the size of germany compared to e.g. the size of a 
single building (yes, you could endlessly discuss about this statement).

So while you're modelling the boundary of the nature_reserve (e.g. using 
a multipolygon) and you're not using a closedway (which you'll probably 
never do for a nature_reserve), it *never* get's in the way of landuse, 
natural, surface or landcover.

Remember: This part of the thread was about a need for landcover because 
of nature_reserve - which I denied.

Regards, ULFL



More information about the Tagging mailing list