[OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests
Dave F
davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Fri Oct 27 11:28:09 UTC 2017
On 27/10/2017 11:49, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>
> If we make no such distinction, then in order to be topographically
> correct, we would have to "cut out" (create multipolygons) for each
> small wood areas with 10 trees inside say residential area.
Well, depending if it's a communal area or privately owned (& whether I
can be bothered), I have done that. People don't, generally, live in trees.
Referring back to your previous comment about not overlapping; you
appear to assume that 'landuse' is being used as the key.
The confusion of having two primary 'keys' for the same object is my
main point.
> Fine. Let's say in higher level there is only one "forest". Then my
> topic moves one layer down and stays exactly the same otherwise.
> What I'm talking is about virtual hierarchy.
> OSM tagging comes AFTER that.
As I map & tag what I see in reality; could you expand on what you mean
by "virtual hierarchy"?
DaveF
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the talk
mailing list