[Tagging] landuse=farmland and highway=track
61sundowner at gmail.com
Tue Jan 12 00:58:39 UTC 2016
On 12/01/2016 11:43 AM, Clifford Snow wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Dave Swarthout
> <daveswarthout at gmail.com <mailto:daveswarthout at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Sometimes as I labor over doing these areas correctly I wonder if
> someday it will all be made obsolete. I don't know when or if it
> will happen but I have to think that some point in the future OSM
> will employ aerial imagery as does Google. Then, instead of a
> white, featureless background in areas no OSMer has "filled in"
> we'll see the earth's surface as it really is with our routable
> ways overlaid upon it.
> No doubt someone will do it for a routing and similar applications.
> The other data we enter is valuable for other uses. For example,
> determine how land a government sets aside for recreation.
> Beside, sometimes a rendered map looks much better than an aerial
> image. Take Epcot Center from Google's perspective,
> https://firstname.lastname@example.org,-81.5502018,1346m/data=!3m1!1e3 <https://email@example.com,-81.5502018,1346m/data=%213m1%211e3>
> and compare it to OSM,
> Personally I like the OSM rendering.
It is not just a matter of looks. If I want a restfull holiday away from
the city I look for the green areas. Less people, trees .. less activity.
If the green area is used for timber production.. most of the time it
will be fine, but avoid harvesting and for, say, a year after!
If I want a place to eat lunch .. again I look for the green areas -
local parks.. even a cemetery! Of course probably somewhere to buy it too.
Here Imagery does not pick the difference between a National Park and a
State Forest .. in fact many National Parks were State Forest some time ago.
The most you can get from the imagery is land cover .. trees for some
National Park and a State Forest and in some cases there parts only for
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging