On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 22:35, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nevertheless, to some extent, we're dealing with "the language of
> OpenStreetMap is UK English as interpreted by Germans,"
Sounds like the setup for a joke. Or a goat song.
Would it be appropriate to propose a mechanical edit to add area=yes
>
to closed ways that are tagged boundary={aboriginal_lands,
> national_park, protected_area} and lack any other keys that would make
> them polygons?
>
Wearing my pedant hat, I'd say it's appropriate to propose just about
anything, however
nonsensical. Taking off my pedant hat, I'd say that seems like a sensible
thing to do.
Putting on my cynic hat, I'd say you'll probably get too many objections
for it to happen:
people will say you have to manually ensure area=yes is actually valid in
each situation;
others will say that mechanical edits should never be performed for any
reason; and
a few will say we should not compensate for database/toolchain shortcomings
by
adding unnecessary tags.
--
Paul
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
