On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:28:39PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2014-10-27 12:16 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. <ricoz....@gmail.com>: > > > > Besides, we really need to deal with object that have fuzzy borders > > > already, e.g., some of the natural=wetland object come to my mind as an > > > example. I quickly browsed through the related pages and discussions, for > > > some strange reason the fuzzy border issue seems to not have been raised > > > there at all? I suppose it's currently left solely to mappers > > > discretion where to put the the edges. > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Fuzzy > > > > > > I don't like this proposal. IMHO we do indeed need a way to map fuzzy > stuff, but it shouldn't be done by drawing an "unfuzzy" way (or node or > polygon) and then declare by tags that it is not to be taken literally, > i.e. that there is no such way in reality but just a fuzzy border somewhere > near that way. Rather we should tackle this on the datatype (or relation) > level and invent some fuzzy objects that are already fuzzy in the way they > are mapped (e.g. a group of nodes (or other objects) that define an area by > saying "I'm inside" and maybe "I'm outside", so that dataconsumers could > calculate an approximation for this area for their needs).
I don't endorse the fuzzy proposal but would like to note that many our objects boundaries can be either razor sharp or extremely fuzzy so making that a property of the object is not a good idea. Consider the boundary of natural=forest, where it ends adjoning a road it is precise to one meter but where it borders natural=scrub the boundary may be fuzzy to several hundred meters. Richard _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
