[Talk-ca] Forests/Land Use, was: Canvec reverts

[Paul Ramsey]

I'm "glad" to see someone else w/ this issue. It's glancingly related to
the canvec import issue, since the land use polygons are a source of some
of the issues the reverter is complaining about (malformed multipolygons /
boundary overlaps).

In my own work in my old home town of Prince George, I've constantly wanted
to just plain delete the "urban area" land use polygon (which doesn't seem
to correspond in any way to the actual urban area of the present) and the
forest polygons (which have the same problem).

Unlike buildings and roads and water, land use is pretty sloppy: where does
the "urban area" end? Is this a "forest" or just a bunch of trees? Since
anyone making a real multi-scale map will fine some other source of
land-use (like classified landsat) and since people trying to map at
high-res are finding the forests add little value and much impedance, why
don't we ... burn down all the forests (and the urban areas too)?

P

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Loïc Haméon <hameonl at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On a final note, though, I certainly would approve of any effort to reduce
> the size of the upload chunks and the assorted polygons. For new mappers
> like me, those create daunting challenges when trying to make incremental
> improvements to an area. Shortly after joining the OSM community I was back
> in my home town of Saint-Félicien, in a fairly remote region that hasn't
> had tons of local mapping done. Some of the inhabited areas I aimed to
> improve were covered by Canvec forest multipolygons, and I ended up giving
> up on them until I could get some more experience as I absolutely did not
> understand what the hell was going on....
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20160901/817cc295/attachment-0001.html>