|
I have a house isolated in a forest. Should I
|
|
Do whatever feels right. If someone says "this forest has 17.12 sq km", would you then reply: "Not quite, you have to subtract one sq km because that's where the house is"? If yes - then make a hole in the forest polygon. If no - just draw the house. (You don't make holes in the forest for tracks either, do you?) 2
(17 Mar '12, 21:42)
gerdami
Surely that depends on the building in question. If it is residential then the associated landuse would be residential and defined as inner. The building would not require an "inner" attribute. If however the building was used by the forest authorities then the building would still not need to be defined as "inner" because the landuse is still "forest".
(14 Apr '12, 09:55)
dcp
1
The idea you are expressing here - that while there cannot be a residential property in a forest, it is perfectly ok to have e.g. an office as part of a forest - is your opinion and not universally shared; some mappers might feel that an isolated residential home in the forest is ok and doesn't make the area non-forest. Others might feel that even if a building is used by the forest authorities it, too, must be on a non-forest area. Still others simply don't care, or find it too tedious to cut holes in the forest area for everything. It really is a matter of judgement.
(14 Apr '12, 12:20)
Frederik Ramm ♦
I totally agree with you discussion points. In Germany where I live there are few residential properties in the forests. However, if you go to North America, Portugal, the Canary islands,etc many residential properties are isolated within other landuse types, so it can be become more relevant. I agree with you though that it is up to mappers but it would be nice to have a standards which we should all adhere to.
(14 Apr '12, 14:35)
dcp
|
