[Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com
> wrote:

> I agree that a rough polygon seems better than a node because it allows to
> estimate the size (a new relation datatype would even be better, like a
> collection of (existing/already mapped) things inside (role) and outside
> (role) that would serve the same purpose but make it clear that it is only
> an estimate / that there aren't clear borders anyway).
>
> I don't like boundary=informal though. It should be something more verbose
> regarding what kind of region this is (natural/geographic, (low) mountain
> range, area of lakes, forest, desert, plains, cultural, ethnographic, wine,
> etc.)
>

A while back one of the conversations on the mailing list was about adding
neighborhood boundaries. There was a lot of concern that many neighborhood
boundaries are not clearly define which would result in boundary disputes.
How is adding a rough boundary for an informal area any different?

Worse, if we start adding informal boundaries I can see someone wanting to
add the Cascadia [1] (Independance Movement) boundary.



[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29

Clifford

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160327/85bdfcf1/attachment.html>