Others gave opinions, I agree with a lot of statements. So let me give a round of personnal agreement (+1's) to these:
> Personally I would prefer an approximate polygon to a node. > I don't like boundary=informal though. It should be something more verbose > regarding what kind of region this is (natural/geographic, (low) mountain > range, area of lakes, forest, desert, plains, cultural, ethnographic, wine, > etc.) > who if not the crowd would be able to iteratively come to approximations of > these borders. As long as the existence of the area is not disputed all > together, there will be an approximation for its border. > Or we accept "best-guess" polygons with "incremental refinement." > Fuzzy boundaries do have their place. > I agree that there are advantages to including fuzzy boundaries, but we > should first document how to tag these features. > Most polygons in OSM are simply not precise enough to define the property > boundaries or even the object's position exactly. Such measurements are, > practically speaking, beyond the capability of our instruments, and we must > accept that in our tagging philosophy. Obviously, forests and woods, > wetlands, and the scrub bordering them are not clearly defined. Yet we > usually tag them as areas rather than nodes so they will show up in a more > useful manner on a map. >>well, as was proposed above, we could introduce a way to store fuzzy areas >>without using polygons, or by using more than one polygon as one object > >May be: Using a minimum (core area) and maximum (extension area) estimation as >one relation. - althio On 27 March 2016 at 11:08, David Marchal <pene...@live.fr> wrote: > Hello, there. > > At least here, in France, there are numerous regions, whose unity is based > either on a common historical background, for example as a medieval county > or duchy like the Barrois, or on a uniform natural landscape, as the Bauges > mountains or the Mont Blanc massif. These regions are often called "pays" in > French, but it should not be understood as a nation, and the regions I'm > talking about do not always have an administrative representations, being > often known only as a traditionally-named area. > > Whatever, how to map such regions? I asked on a French forum, but it seems > that the issue has not really been addressed, at least not from our point of > view, but there may be an existing tagging scheme for that, as I see no > reason for this issue being culturally restricted to our country. I assume > that, as there areas do not always have clearly defined borders, they should > be tagged as a single node, but, still, how to map them? > > Awaiting your answers, > > Regards. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
