Warin wrote > On 10/01/2016 8:55 PM, Gerd Petermann wrote: >> Dave Swarthout wrote >>> Haha, welcome to the club. This is a problem everyone faces. Here in >>> Thailand I spend a lot of time breaking up large wood multipolygons >>> because >>> in the early days folks did not take the time to do it right. Woods do >>> not >>> cover highways (unless its a farm track) nor do they cover water >>> features >>> like river valleys or reservoirs. I can tell you this, it's a lot of >>> work >>> either way you decide to do it but future mappers will thank you if you >>> do >>> it properly in the first place. >> Oh, yes, I also have that problem with natural=wood polygons, often >> containing >> nearly 2000 nodes and typically completely wrong (according to the >> ortorectified GSI images), >> covering large parts of residential areas, farmland, water, and so on. >> In my eyes landuse or natural polygons should never be that >> complex, when I create one with more than 100 nodes I start >> feeling uncomfortable. > > :-D Come to Australia... > > Stuart national Park covers over 340,000 hectares .. most of its > boundaries are orthogonal though.. > > Kosciuszko National Park covers about 690,000 hectares (1.5 million aces) > ... has a very crinkly boundary!
OK, wood is probably much more complex, but the subject is about farmland. I guess whenever machines (tractors etc.) are used on it the shapes will be rather simple. Gerd -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/landuse-farmland-and-highway-track-tp5864502p5864513.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
