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

Graeme Fitzpatrick graemefitz1 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 23 22:41:58 UTC 2020


On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 03:27, Martin Søndergaard <sondergaard246 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> most interesting discussion I have seen on this list yet. And I want to
> give a few of my thoughts as well.
>

Thank you, Martin!

Excellent post & I agree entirely with what you say.

As I mentioned a while back (may have been in another of Ander's threads?)
- we draw an area & say that this is a town / village, but what about that
house 300m down the road, & the one 500m beyond that? Do those people think
they live in this town?

My own city is a major built-up area, but as you go out into the
surrounding country, you come to suburbs with acre / <hectare house blocks,
then a bit further there are multi acre / hectare blocks, but where does
the "city" end?

On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 03:58, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>    - natural=glacier with ~56,000 entries
>    - place=archipelago with ~1,300 entries
>
> These three are not at all fuzzy, in the mathematical sense.
>

I'd question a couple of those thanks, Joseph.

Glaciers are constantly moving, so how can they not be fuzzy, especially
now with climate change apparently melting Arctic glaciers at an ever
increasing rate, so their boundaries must be constantly changing?

& with archipelagos, & bigger island nations, whose boundaries are drawn
across the open ocean - how can we be precise about that line?

Thanks

Graeme
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201224/92dccf96/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list