[OSM-talk] Large cadastral polygons

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Fri Jun 12 23:35:02 UTC 2020


On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:32 PM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13/6/20 1:37 am, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:28 AM Florian Lohoff <f at zz.de> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 02:14:15PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via talk
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Jun 12, 2020, 13:59 by f at zz.de:
>> >
>> > > Changeset envelopes which span more than 100s of km² are broken.
>> > >
>> > Except cases where you edit/delete already created huge objects or you
>> create
>> > huge object that actually should be created.
>> >
>>
>> These types of objects should be pretty exceptional. I try to split
>> landuses to sub 1km² because i also feel the pain for
>> rendering tiles. As soon as someone touches those areas you invalidate
>> tons of tiles. So breaking this down also benefits us long term
>> concerning workload on the tile servers.
>>
>
> Not just that, but cadastral type tags probably shouldn't be spanning
> large areas to start with.  If your landuse or landcover polygon is
> crossing an unclassified or higher highway, you're probably making a big
> mistake.  landuse=residential is NOT a substitute for place=neighborhood
> (something I see a lot).
>
>
> Hummm.. the following military areas are used as a rocket test firing
> area. Spiting them up into 1 km square areas would be a lot of work! Total
> area is approximately 122,188 km².
>

Odds are that's a single parcel.  Nobody's expecting that to get broken
up.  But when you have landuse=residential spanning entire city districts,
or entire towns and crossing other landuses like retail, commericial,
industrial, highway and railway, that's clearly a misuse.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20200612/66c2ef19/attachment.htm>


More information about the talk mailing list