[Tagging] Fuzzy areas again: should we have them or not?

[stevea]

On Dec 21, 2020, at 11:41 AM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm really reluctant to say that the solution must be to foist the problem off on an external database.  All geodata are approximate. To say that anything with imprecision doesn't belong in OSM is to open the door to endless haggling over how good the survey must be before data meet OSM's standards. Is that the path we want to take?

I'm not sure, Kevin.  I do agree that imprecise data frequently enter OSM (may such imprecision be only minor, please) and that "fuzzy" can very well be a valuable extension of that concept, allowing it to widely envelop what might be meant by an explicit tag denoting "fuzzy."  Yet, I don't want endless haggling, it is counterproductive.

Presently I do my best to listen.  I realize it is easy to shoot down what sounds like folly, while not contributing something positive instead.  As we're in an early stage of this discussion, I don't well comprehend what those who wish "fuzzy" to enter OSM mean to accomplish.  So, I watch its evolution, participating in discussion when I believe others might find value in my contributions.

Let's be clear that "widening" (and more precisely, explicitly) defining what OSM means by fuzzy would at once be a positive move in the direction of clarity, while also opening the door to what can only be described as a significant paradigm shift in how this project enters data.  Even for seasoned mappers in this project, it is a major topic to absorb.

SteveA