Proposal talk:Fuzzy
Sound good to me
As more and more data is added to the OSM DB, mapping experience will become worst, I hope that one day editors might be able to leave asside several "non physical" lines.
But I'm ok with the idea, solutions will come as the problem raise. Sletuffe 16:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
A good idea. However, to make it more generally usable (e.g. for objects with lower uncertainty in boundaries), the value should be in Meters(m), so the example could read fuzzy=3900 instead of fuzzy=4.
- +1 (I believe the proposal already reflects this) Gorm 09:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Rendering this nicely might be some challenge, though.
fuzzy= would be a really good additional tag for natural=valley, natural=massif and others
--Alessioz 13:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
fuzzy would be a good tag also for nodes or polygons (tagged as eg. place=locality) *Martin*
- I don't like this proposal. IMHO we do indeed need a way to map fuzzy stuff, but it shouldn't be done by drawing an "unfuzzy" way (or node or polygon) and then declare by tags that it is not to be taken literally, i.e. that there is no such way in reality but just a fuzzy border somewhere near that way. Rather we should tackle this on the datatype (or relation) level and invent some fuzzy objects that are already fuzzy in the way they are mapped (e.g. a group of nodes (or other objects) that define an area by saying "I'm inside" and maybe "I'm outside", so that dataconsumers could calculate an approximation for this area for their needs). --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)