[Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Dave F]

I forgot to mention that linear ways do have an implied width. It can be 
explicitly declared with the width tag. Although, other than waterways I 
don't /think/ any renderers take advantage of it.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:width

DaveF

On 01/01/2020 00:49, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> Yes I *know*, Martin
>
> I was trying to intimate, *personally*, I wouldn't bother obsessing 
> with mapping every *square inch* of land.
> Each to there own, of course, map as you see fit, but I find most 
> renderings of areas obscure thin centre lines.
> Adding surface tags enhances the opacity of tracks/footpaths o the 
> 'standard' rendering.
>
> On 31/12/2019 18:45, Martin Wynne wrote:
>> On 31/12/2019 18:10, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
>>> I would add the appropriate surface=* tag to the way.
>>
>> Thanks Dave.
>>
>> But a way is a *line*.
>>
>> I want to tag the *area*. I've got 3 ways - 2 fences and a track. 
>> Tagging ways is easy. Finding a meaningful tag for areas seems to be 
>> much more difficult.
>>
>> If the landuse is the same on both sides, a field of cabbages on the 
>> left and a field of potatoes on the right, I can just let "farmland" 
>> flow across the track area. But if it is a wood on the right, where 
>> is the boundary between the wood and the cabbages? The track? 
>> Stitching things to highways is frowned on. Or one of the fences? 
>> Which one?
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Martin.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb