Topic split by request.
1 Like
In order to do something with OSM data, you need to decide what each thing represents. Nodes are just points, and relations, if they are of type multipolygon, are obviously areas.
But what about ways? Some are “obviously lines” (barrier=fence, perhaps). Some are “obviously areas” (leisure=pitch?). What about leisure=track. If you search for closed leisure=track ways without an area tag you’ll find some that are obviously linear and some that are obviously areas. There’s no way to tell which are areas and which are not.
There are a few OSM tags that have been abused in this way - aeroway=runway and barrier=hedge are a couple of the others.
1 Like
Yes, and in the case of leisure=track I’ve done that with any vaguely local ones (within 50km or so). But the world is a bigger place that that…
that’s why we are here to help you 
That post was actually trying to make a point in this thread actually, although I wouldn’t object if it was moved.
The point I was trying to make here was that:
- As described, “landuse proposal V2” really didn’t make any sense.
- That it had been debated before, ad nasueam, and hadn’t won over the support of mappers
- That this didn’t mean that I was opposed to any changes, just ones that didn’t add any value.
3 Likes
Andy, please help the moderators out here: which specific messages (message numbers) should be split into which topics? It all looks a bit of a jumble to someone who hasn’t been following this thread, sorry. Many thanks.
OK, @Matija_Nalis, can you please tell us mods which message numbers need to be split off into which new topics?
1 Like
The one that I suggested was that message 208 and all replies to it could be split to topic named “suggesting Area data type” (or similar).
1 Like
There is a lot to potentially harvest here, the topic is years, decades, centuries old. People continue to approach it in ways which “break it” in new, creative ways. 208 and its ilk splitting is an excellent start.
1 Like