And to pointing out: yes I appreciate the great effort of RB, but Valais still has so much potential in other areas that (as already written by Michael) I would welcome to put the energy there first.

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

------- Original Message -------
On Monday, June 27th, 2022 at 9:51 PM, Kt47uo5uVzW <kt47uo5uVzW@protonmail.com> wrote:

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:
- https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=120691858
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119885336

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)
- Maintainability
- Resource saving

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

------- Original Message -------
On Monday, June 27th, 2022 at 9:24 PM, Sarah Hoffmann lonvia@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.

Sarah
talk-ch mailing list
talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch
http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch
talk-ch mailing list
talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch
http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch