[OSM-talk] Not attaching polygons to roads

Dave F. davefox at madasafish.com
Fri Feb 21 11:41:08 UTC 2014


On 20/02/2014 22:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 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;

This bit I disagree with. Field or cemetery boundaries etc don't go to 
the centreline of the road. "Pulling them apart" & placing them where 
they are in reality is improving OSM by making it more accurate. Even if 
not boundary is added.


>   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.

Disagree again, I'm afraid. Improving OSM's accuracy supersedes taste.

To clarify I'm only referring to instances of polygons attached to 
roads. Differing landuse areas abutting each other, fields to 
residential, for example, is OK. However on saying that it does often 
make selecting a polygon difficult if attached on all sides.


Cheers
Dave F.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com




More information about the talk mailing list