Of course. I said that they could and should be replaced with newer shapes once available. See my point 3 above and I also stated it in some changeset comments. They were true to the available imagery and sometimes mapped with too many nodes (but too many nodes isn't exactly an attack against the project). Buildings get destroyed and built, forests grow and are cut. Newer imagery might use better correction... OSM is a living project and everything should evidently be updated when better sources are available. 

Now, if you imply that I am somehow "guilty" of not updating everything I have ever mapped as soon as a new source is available, I am afraid you are right. But who isn't?

Le dim. 24 sept. 2023 à 16:41, Robert Obryk <robryk@gmail.com> a écrit :
On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 12:53 AM RB <tanrub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For me, as stated last year:
>
> 1. I have probably in the past added too many nodes because of the way I was mapping (clicking rapidly on the mouse while moving the cursor along the shape of the wooded area). This is not a good practice but isn't causing any damage to the project and I have changed the way I map since (basically being more mindful of every node) following our discussion.
>
> 2. There is absolutely no reason not to map wood patches provided that the available imagery allows that. The simplification is a renderer matter.

Some comments upthread were claiming that the patches, as depicted on
the imagery you're using, are already out of date (due to the imagery
being 5+ years old). Did you respond to that somewhere already?


> 3. Of course, anything in OSM should be improved and modified, once a better source exists. This applies to forests, buildings and any other elements. However, replacing detailed areas with untrue simpler geometries  or with points when there are no ways to see where the individual tunks are located  simply constitutes a regression.
>
> In addition, in the discussion this year, false allegations have been made, suggesting that I was using automated tools and that I was mapping "arbitrarily". Both these claims are obviously wrong. I take care to always document the source in almost every way I trace and I have even at times produced my own aerial imagery.  Consequently, while I am always happy to explain what I do and how I do and accept legitimate criticism, I can only ignore the authors of such claims if they don't believe me.
>
> Nice Sunday to all. :-)
>
>
>
> Le dim. 24 sept. 2023 à 04:17, Marc M. <marc_marc_irc@hotmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>> Le 23.09.23 à 22:53, Raphael a écrit :
>> > Hier stehen die Bäume etwas dichter, weshalb ich die Position der
>> > einzelnen Bäume nicht überall erkennen kann. Meines Erachtens wäre es
>> > am besten, solche Flächen als offener Wald (`natural=open_forest` o.
>> > ä.) einzuzeichnen, wie dies auch Swisstopo macht. Leider gibt es
>> > (bisher) kein solches Tag.
>>
>> c'est quoi une foret ouverte ?
>> si le tag n'eiste pas, il suffit de le créer
>> mais c'est peut-être simplement une caractéristique d'une zone boisée
>> pour un sous-tag et non un tag primaire
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk-ch mailing list -- talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch
>> To unsubscribe send an email to talk-ch-leave@openstreetmap.ch
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk-ch mailing list -- talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch
> To unsubscribe send an email to talk-ch-leave@openstreetmap.ch
_______________________________________________
talk-ch mailing list -- talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch
To unsubscribe send an email to talk-ch-leave@openstreetmap.ch