2016-01-11 9:09 GMT+01:00 Florian Lohoff <f...@zz.de>: > I am not so religious about covering tracks in farmland. The point is > that huge polygons tend to break much more often and tend to be much > harder to modify/fix. I personally keep polygons small for that reason. > > Also there are much more fine grained tags for agricultural land e.g. > meadow etc - Typically when you map farmland and do it right it does not > grow that huge. You have small wooden strips, waterways with > scrub around, roads etc. I typically even break up at field boundaries > seen in differences in plant growths etc as thats typically the > boundary for changes in usage in the future. >
completely agree. Huge farmland polygons (at least in the regions where I map, i.e. typically patchy landscapes in high density areas) will sooner or later be modified by subtracting enclosed things that are identified as different, e.g. scrubs, wet zones, tree areas, buildings and isolated dwellings (or also archaeological sites, which are very common in the surroundings here). The worst thing to do is not splitting up the farmland but create a multipolygon relation and start subtracting. After some time these grow to relation monsters, sometimes with tens or even hundreds of inner ways, almost impossible to overlook and very annoying to split up into smaller pieces at this state. Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
