Hello Udarian,

I mostly map land cover and land use all over the world and I rarely, if ever, use multipolygons. I only use them if the geometry is complex enough to require them, which is not the case with the polygons I am adding nor is it the case with these canals - the topology is simply not that complex, especially considering I am careful to ensure they share the same nodes. I always edit with the "multipolygons only when necessary" approach, and this is the first time in my years of editing anyone has ever commented on this approach.

Furthermore, the canals can all be represented by individual canal area polygons and related through a relation if necessary. There is no need to store them as a multipolygon. It's easier on the database and if you are querying a specific local bounding box, you would only return the canal areas relevant to your bounding box instead of the entire canal.

This is especially true with the grass area in the interstate as the grass areas are not related to each other in any sense. They can easily be treated as individual polygons and storing them as multipolygons makes the data needlessly complex.

I'd actually suggest using /less/ multipolygons unless absolutely necessary.

Cheers
ArizonaMapper

I honestly do not understand why that canal is a multipolygon. I'm just adding nodes in iD, there is no need for the new polygon to be a multipolygon at the moment.

I'll keep an eye out, thanks. I'm not really sure why that specific grass area is a single multipolygon as complexity should generally be avoided and I must admit I only noticed that once you pointed it out, as I was just trying to affix the land area to the fence. Hopefully it won't be an issue going forward and let me know if you see another issue.

I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to. Most land use polygons are not multipolygons.

And it doesn't look like it shares any nodes with any roads

Highway isn't a land use?

I'm tracing everything in manually in iD and am trying to only including areas which are clearly residential from aerial photos. If I only trace one block that usually means it was easier to just trace that block due to other previously existing polygons. Hope that clarifies things

It looked clearly erroneous as a football pitch in shape and in imagery, if this is wrong happy to change it back

Done. iD does that sometimes with stray points

Strange! I think the editor glitched on the upload. Deleted.

I'm adding in land use information consistent with the rest of the world, which frequently includes sidewalks and streets as part of the residential land use coverage. There is no requirement that it stop at a sidewalk. As an example, zoom into any residential part of Paris. Polygonal land use information is indeed needed and important to map and cannot be determined just from building type alone.

They're not different from the 1000s of acres surrounding them, it's just those places haven't been tagged as forest yet.

mis-clicked "review_requested" when saving, didn't unclick in time

Thanks for your comment. I took a look at 846943946 and I don't see any meadow or scrub - I agree there probably should have been carve-outs for the dirt patch and perhaps the houses, but I'm adding polygons in modularly to make them easy to delete/edit. I don't see any major issues with accuracy after a review. However, if you see any other issues, please let me know.

not sure what the copyright problem would be?

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/kiwi-ex-pats-pioneer-spirit-claim-island-in-australia-behalf-nz-jacinda-ardern