[OSM-talk] area_with_holes as alternative to multipolygon relation

[Martijn van Oosterhout]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Dave Stubbs <osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk> wrote:
>  It's feature X that's too weakly defined. The question you're really
>  asking here is what is meant by forest? I think most people are
>  interpreting it as an area of land covered by trees, in which case a
>  lake is certainly not forest.

This is beginning to sound a lot like "if a road goes through a
forest, does it split the forest in two?". Is a park with lots of
footpaths actually many little parks separated by footpaths? You're
right, this discussion isn't going anywhere useful :)

>  This is mainly the difference between logical areas, and actual
>  physical features. So maybe forest is just a really bad tag at the
>  moment and being constantly "misused".

Possibly. I thought we were trying to input logical data, because
converting logical->physical is easy and from physical->logical
basically impossible.

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