[Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Tue Nov 21 00:41:07 UTC 2017


Gleb,

On 11/21/2017 12:02 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Of course multipolygonizing couple of buildings that touch coastline in
> Monterey was wrong. Sorry, I was in a multipolygonizing rage as I was
> going through the coastline. :)

We have a general (unwritten) convention in OSM and that is "don't force
your taste on other mappers".

When you edit data contributed by others, and you improve it with your
own knowledge or data collected on the ground, then nobody expects any
restraint from you - improve away!

However, in matters of taste - where you are NOT adding information, and
instead just changing the represenation of the data in the database - we
tend to say: It is for you to decide the style in which YOU contribute,
but do not try to overrule others and force your style on them.

(There's another issue that mappers never agree on, and that's whether
when there's a track on the edge of the forest and beyond that, a
meadow, all three should share nodes, or whether room is to be left to
the left and right of the track because "the forest doesn't end in the
middle of the track").

These things are matters of taste, and neither representation is more
correct or contains more information than the other; two stubborn
mappers at loggerheads could potentially re-style an area from one style
to the other and back every week.

Hence: Apply your personal style to new contributions that you make, but
don't go around applying it to contibutions made by others. This sort of
"cleanup" benefits few but your personal sense of orderliness, and your
time is better spent actually improving data instead of just fiddling
with how the same data is represented in the database.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"



More information about the Talk-us mailing list