[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sun Jan 30 11:05:45 GMT 2011


2011/1/29 John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>:
>>> On 30 January 2011 03:34, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> even though this creates some problems: if you tag a polygon with
>>>> natural=beach, surface=sand, doesn't this imply a the polygon is sand?
>>>> The "beach" could often include also bars, restaurants, parking space,
>>>> paths and other. surface on a polygon should IMHO imply that this
>>>> polygon has this surface. In this optic the landcover-values is more
>>>> generalizing while surface shouldn't.
>>>
>>> I'm still failing to see the relevance here, after all wouldn't those
>>> other locations have their own POI or polygon?
>>
>>
>> yes, they would result in overlapping polygons with different surface
>> values. You could not tell which one is valid.
>
> That makes no sense, assuming good faith, why would someone
> intentionally upload an invalid polygon? (other than by accident)


broken by design...
There won't be an "invalid polygon", there would be 2 valid but
contradicting polygons.

cheers,
Martin



More information about the Tagging mailing list