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

Graeme Fitzpatrick graemefitz1 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 22 00:13:59 UTC 2020


On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 09:49, stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:

>  More thoughtful voices here on "fuzzy areas," please.  We could use them!
>

I'm in total agreement, because lot's of things are fuzzy, even the thighs
we like to think are precise!

As I mentioned on one of the other threads, I've just recently mapped a
large wooded area that I had visited, but mapped working off aerial
imagery. Is my mapping exact to the outline of the trees shown? No! Is it
pretty close? Yes! & how would you be expected to exactly map something
that's "moving" all the time as trees grow & die?

Lakes / ponds / reservoirs are another one that expand in the wet but
contract in drought, but that we don't seem to worry about. Here, according
to OSMAND, is where I was driving my *car* a couple of years ago!
https://ibb.co/N64tfmb. As you can see, at the time, I was supposed to be
about 1k from shore, (& also about 13m underwater!), but we were high & dry
due to a severe ongoing drought :-( Should I go in & completely redraw the
edge of the lake to match the current water line?

Thanks

Graeme
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201222/2b38c125/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list