[talk-ch] vandalism under the pretense of "simplifying"

Sarah Hoffmann lonvia at denofr.de
Mon Jun 27 23:24:17 CEST 2022

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:36:23PM +0200, Michael Flamm wrote:
> In my point of view, the debate about the optimal precision of mapping is an important one. I would very much welcome inputs from experts that are able to evaluate potential memory overload impacts as well as increased rendering calculation times linked to a massive rise of the number of nodes for a given object.

This isn't really the important point here. The problem with the
hyper-precise mapping is that it suggests a precision of data that
simply isn't there. The nodes in the original landuse polygons are on
average 1m apart. Even for a single tree I would argue that it is hard
to define the area that it covers at that precision. The forest boundary
is by its nature (no pun intended) an imprecise thing that changes all
the time. Not to mention that it is not quite clear where a forest ends
and a different landuse with a couple of free-standing trees on it
begins. If you have a look at the Swisstopo image in the affected areas,
you will see that the original mapper made rather arbitrary choices
whether or not to include a tree in a 'forest area'.

If you are mapping a slightly fuzzy area, the precision of the mapping
should reflect that. Anything else is just painting pretty pictures.

So in my opinion the simplififaction of those areas wasn't vandalism. On
the contrary, I'd rather like to see them simplified quite a bit more.
But that's just my 2c.


More information about the talk-ch mailing list