[OSM-talk] Too much detail, or: mapping every single tree in a park

[stevea]

I don't think it's so terrible.  In almost 12 years of mapping (and participating in talk-lists and discussion with the wider community), this is the first I recall hearing / reading of somebody complaining that OSM is TOO detailed.  If that's actually a problem (I have some difficulty with the concept), it's one I don't mind having.  At least right now, in this case.

Just because you can't imagine a use case for somebody knowing where each individual tree is in a park doesn't mean there isn't one.  "Failures of imagination" happen all the time, especially in cartography.  It's OK.  It isn't like "we're running out of bytes" or something like that.  The map gets richer and more detailed over time, is all.

On Apr 26, 2021, at 8:02 PM, Skyler Hawthorne <osm at dead10ck.com> wrote:
> I came across this: 
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/42.71889/-73.78869 
> 
> And can't help but think that this serves no utility to anyone whatsoever, and just takes up space and slows down map editors. 
> 
> I hesitate to destroy the effort of someone who clearly spent a significant amount of time meticulously mapping each tree, but... at the same, does it really help anyone to know where each individual tree is in a park? 
> 
> Maybe I'm too pessimistic. What does everyone else think? Is there such a thing as too much detail? Where do we draw the line?