[Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Sun Mar 27 19:59:42 UTC 2016


If we can't mark polygons as fuzzy, then we can only allow 'accurate'
polygons. Then we are back to square one, with no way of accommodating
these regions except for a simple node. 

I think the problem is clear (how do we represent regions whose
boundaries are not precisely defined). Time to talk about solutions. 

The status quo is without any guidelines, possibly leading to random
creativity according to the whim of the mapper concerned. 

Another option is to not do it, to say such things have no place in OSM,
and actively reject any attempt to do so (i.e. if anyone dares to put
"Pays de Bray" or "Shakespeare Country" into OSM, the objects will be
deleted and the mapper admonished).

Or we go for the single-node approach, and lose out on any clues about
the extent of the area concerned. 

Or we accept "best-guess" polygons with "incremental refinement." 

Any offers? 

//colin 

On 2016-03-27 21:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> sent from a phone
> 
>> Am 27.03.2016 um 21:16 schrieb Anders Fougner <anders.fougner at gmail.com>:
>> 
>> Did you already consider a fuzzy tag (such as fuzzy=yes or boundary_fuzzy=yes)?
> 
> that's a makeshift which isn't quite elegant and still has similar problems (things that seem to be in might be out and vice versa).
> 
> cheers,
> Martin 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160327/e91ca777/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list