[OSM-talk] area_with_holes as alternative to multipolygon relation

[Martijn van Oosterhout]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Igor Brejc <igor.brejc at gmail.com> wrote:
>  That's fine if you look at OSM data from the presentation viewpoint
>  only. But what if sometime in the future somebody wanted to calculate
>  its surface area? ;)

Are you saying that if someone asks you to calculate the area of a
national park, that they're expecting you to subtract the areas of any
lakes, ponds, rivers within it? Different example, but you get the
idea.

The area of a housing estate includes the area of the buildings on it.

If there is a forest with a lake in it and I get on a boat, have I
left the forest? I'd say no (you are simultaneously in the forest and
on the lake), but I can imagine people disagreeing with that. My point
is that the question "What is the area of feature X" is too weakly
defined to be basing our structure on the answer.

Have a nice day,
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog at gmail.com> http://svana.org/kleptog/