[talk-ch] vandalism under the pretense of "simplifying"
kt47uo5uVzW at protonmail.com
Mon Jun 27 23:51:13 CEST 2022
I agree with Sarah. In my opinion the important point is whether it makes sense in reality to have such high accuracy. Probably more so for buildings and roads than for forests. But I don't want to judge that myself.
I see, that some other mappers are also pointing out this circumstances. For example:
I personally would therefore also welcome a lower accuracy. For the following reasons:
- Accuracy in nature not given (already evident in recent satellite images and some arbitrary decisions, whether forest or not)
- Resource saving
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Monday, June 27th, 2022 at 9:24 PM, Sarah Hoffmann <lonvia at denofr.de> wrote:
> 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.
> talk-ch mailing list
> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
More information about the talk-ch