61sundowner at gmail.com
Sat Jul 28 04:29:00 UTC 2018
On 28/07/18 14:13, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On 28 July 2018 at 12:31, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
> I think the basic tag is trying to show that the surrounding area
> (usually trees) stops around this area. So why not tag the trees
> as a multipoygon and use these tagged clearings are inners? It
> would render unlike the 'clearing' and convey the information.
> These are all HOT armchair mapping so I have no concerns armchair
> mapping them back.
> A sample:
> Any thoughts?
> I think you'd be right in saying that the multipolygon would look
> better, but it would be easier to just do the =clearing.
It would be easier to simply delete the landuse=clearing.
However OSM would loose some data.
I cannot simply convert these to a single landcover (natural=heath for
example) as some contain more than one cover.
Simplest for me, without loosing data, is to broadly map the tree area,
OSM retains the data and gets some new data with it.
> & I notice that the example you put up was from "#YouthMappers #TexasTech"
> Maybe a relatively inexperienced mapper, just trying to do as much as
> possible, as quickly as possible?
There are a number of authors .. all HOT, probably all at one event,
under one supervisor.
I have taken the liberty of already converting some into an already
existing 'wood' after I made the first posting here.
You can see the small bits that have been excluded. This was less mapped
with those landuse=clearing things so easier to do with t he existing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging