[Talk-us] Multipolygonizing

[Joel Holdsworth]

On 21/11/17 14:29, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>    Steve,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 04:34:18PM -0800, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
> O> If the reltoolbox plug-in as as powerful as I am beginning to understand it may be (I appreciate the introduction, Gleb), and given my agreement that certain use cases (especially landuse) benefit greatly from multipolygonized boundaries (they do), I actually CAN imagine that the SCCGIS V4 landuse import data (in 2019 or 2020) could become multipolygon.  This likely would involve a pre-upload translation of polygon data into mulitipolygon using the tool, then conflation (which has to be done anyway).  Except, we upload multipolygons as we delete existing polygons during the conflation-and-upload phase.
> O>
> O> I wanted to offer that bright spot of hope to anybody's lingering beliefs that I am "mule-entrenched" in my beliefs that existing polygons are always superior.  They are not.  They make updates harder, but I think I can get over that, as I can be convinced that "once done, the time investment is worth it" for the future benefits that multipolygons bring.
> 
> Okay, I will withhold myself from touching polygons in the Santa Cruz County
> for next couple of years, and let's see how your future experience with
> SCCGIS goes on. We can get back to this question later in scope of Santa Cruz.
> 
> Meanwhile, do I understand that my initial understanding of strong consensus
> against multipolygons in the USA overall was wrong reading? First few emails
> in the thread made me think so.
> 
> I'd like to continue working on coastline, and map all remaining SMRs and
> later maintain them. I also want keep using multipolygons in any regular
> edits. Are there any objections?
> 

I use multipolygons extensively for the land cover around Rocky Mountain 
National Park.