[OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads

Peter Wendorff wendorff at uni-paderborn.de
Fri Feb 21 08:19:36 UTC 2014

Hi Frederik,
I agree - but only in parts.
If the other mapper shares nodes between the road and the field, and the
field is surrounded (and tagged as such) with a fence, so the field is
e.g. landuse=farmland, barrier=fence, then this is an error in the map
as it states that the fence is in the middle of the street or it's not
possible to decide where relative to the street the fence is.

In this case dividing them without adding new features IMHO is fixing a
bug in the map data, and joining a fence with a way along several nodes
in a line is an error - if not vandalism when doing it repeatingly while
igoring personal messages according to the same issue.

Nevertheless of course you're right: Changing the way of mapping without
adding value/improvement (!) is not okay.


Am 20.02.2014 23:40, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> Hi,
> On 20.02.2014 23:04, Dave F. wrote:
>> There's a general consensus that attaching polygons to ways that
>> represent roads was a bad idea.
> Not really.
> There is not a consensus but a ceasefire. Everyone is free to map this
> as they like, and to change it if there's a need - e.g. someone else has
> connected the field to the road, now you want to map the fence, so you
> need to split it apart. That's ok. Similarly, someone re-doing the whole
> area from better imagery or whatever has every right to map as he
> pleases - if they thing they can be more efficient by joining
> boundaries, more power to them.
> What is *not* ok is one person "cleaning up" after the other without
> actually adding any other improvement.
> I.e. if the other guy has connected the fields and the roads and you
> have been *only* pulling them apart without contributing anything else
> to the area in question, then you should have let them be; on the other
> hand, if the other guy has merged fields and roads that previously were
> separate, then they shouldn't have done that.
> This whole question is essentially a matter of taste, and you are
> allowed to map according to your taste, and discouraged from enforcing
> your taste for others.
> Bye
> Frederik

More information about the talk mailing list