On 05-02-20 20:17, Christoph Hormann wrote: > But that is not in any way sustainable and it would be highly > confusing for mappers because the conditions resulting in this > rendering would be unique and could not be derived from any general > principles.
I understand the reasoning, but what mappers see now is: > You thought you could map hedges as areas using `area=yes`, the wiki > told you that, and you've seen it done like that everywhere, but > it was wrong, there is no way to map hedges as areas, and all those > hedges you and your fellow mapper mapped are now tens of thousands > of errors on the map. That is, to put it mildly, quite confusing, not to mention disheartening. It will also result in less-involved mappers remapping the damage by turning hedges into scrub on the map. The only alternatives are redrawing them as linear features (losing detail in the process, and feeling like a massive waste of time) or removing them completely. Surely we can come up with a more constructive way forward? Keeping the rendering for `barrier=hedge` plus `area=yes` for the time being seems sensible and in keeping with the general use of those two tags in combination. If a tagging can be agreed on that can work for several applicable barrier-values mapped as areas, then that can gradually replace the `area=yes`-way for hedges. At some point the rendering for the old way can be turned off to help mappers migrate, but there has to be some overlap in time. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
