Why are unmanageable landuse polygons still getting introduced?
Is there any tool to split this up in pieces so that no relation remains?
In what way is it unmanageable?
In reality every solar farm and every single house inside the farmland should have the “inner” role. For the renderer this unclean way of mapping works, but for GIS operations it would be good if nothing would overlay the farmland.
@Nehaj: There is no reason to make OSM data easy to consumer for a given GIS application. Given that OSM does not have layers, that there is no reason why landuses cannot overlap and that making it easy to contribute data, any prudent data consumer will need to make allowance for these vagaries.
In practice it is relatively straightforward to set up processes which achieve results similar to the Carto-CSS rendering. Basically, assign natural priorities to given landuse classes and then through a series of unions, differences etc create a tesselated layer of the features required. Note that nearly every application is likely to want to have slightly different ways of processing OSM data.
There are projects to create landuse/landcover dataset from OSM, which would be more suitable for immediate consumption in a GIS system.
As for this particular polygon. My experience is that farmland is better mapped as many small polygons for a wide range of reasons. I would recommend that polygons do not cross motorable roads. However, I would rarely bother to map farmyards, woods lakes as inners, I would just add them as a separate polygon & expect data consumers to decide what they want.
My experience is that farmland is better mapped as many small polygons for a wide range of reasons.
That’s my opinion, too. It’s even less work than creating overly big multipolygons.
I routinely create/handle polygons that do cross motorable roads and generally find them way more manageable than those that do not. Why do you recommend that they do not?