2017-05-02 12:10 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de>: > I agree there is no point in mapping this kind of feature as > multipolygons in OSM but i disagree that changing type=multipolygon to > type=boundary makes it any better. >
+1 I thought about how this kind of feature could be represented in OSM in > a practically useful and manageable way in the past and came to the > conclusion that > * it would be useful to have a a robust option to sparsely map this kind > of feature, i.e. map them in a way that avoids the need for the mappers > to add redundant and non-verifiable information but allows them to add > relevant and verifiable information as far as it exists and still have > a formally valid and consistent object. > * it will be very hard to get acceptance for such a mapping concept > because of the widespread paradigm that everything in the world can and > should be represented as points, linestrings or polygons (or nodes, > ways and multipolygons in OSM). > > Some further discussion on the matter can be found here by the way: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:natural% > 3Dvalley#Valley_as_relation.3F > +1, more discussion on this (in German language) here: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2014-May/108270.html Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
