On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 06:30:20PM +0200, RB wrote:
I am sorry but I don't agree with their arguments and I have addressed them before. Let me restate.
Sarah makes the argument that the forest changes. Of course it does. I think that precise mapping in this case is a feature not a bug as it will in the future allow us to study the evolution of the vegetation.
No, that is not at all the point I was trying to make. I was saying that the definition where a forest ends is fuzzy at any one given point in time. Here is how you can test this: give the current Swisstopo imagery to 10 different mappers and tell them to map the forest on them with the highest precision possible. I guarantee you that you will get 10 different results. The deviation between the results will tell you how much fuzziness there is in a boundary and consequentely what preceision is worth mapping. OSM is at its best when the average of the 10 opinions is what is actually mapped.
Keep up your good work in refining the forests but maybe consider the following points to avoid future conflicts with other mappers:
* Use a few less points. There is no hard limit here and sometimes a sharp bend will do well with more points, but an average 10m distance is probably a good rule-of-thumb for the image quality we have today. * Try to straighten things out a bit. If the treeline looks straight on average, then map it straight instead of going around every tree branch. That does not mean that you should return to pointy angles, I just mean mapping the treeline a little less wiggly in the spirit of the average I was explaining above. * Consider using natural=tree nodes for single trees and small groups of trees and also when there is a tree slightly outside the treeline where currently you would add a little appendix. (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/46.30407/6.90451)
Sarah