<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Mar 31, 2019, 5:40 PM by sandors39@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div class=""><p class=""><span lang="NO-BOK">>> </span><br></p><p class="">>>Can you link some objects that you consider as tagged in a wrong way and<br></p><p class="">>>some similar ones tagged in way that you consider correct?<br></p><p class="">>>Currently it is unclear to me what is the problem.<br></p><p class="">>> <br></p><p class="">These notes have triggered my attention from the Re to my original mail. It is hard to communicate if you really don not see the problem, though I think you meant something else. What more, whether the referenced issues are problems or not, depends on the individual criteria. Anyway, I need to add some notes and representative examples to clarify the dilemma: is the recent practice referencing coastline objects from other objects correct or not?<br></p><div><p class="">-Coastline object covered by a river <a href="https://osm.org/go/ZE6RWif_--?layers=T&way=22404175" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://osm.org/go/ZE6RWif_--?layers=T&way=22404175</a> . The object is in the coastline data erroneously left there when the other object has been moved out from the coastline data. This island in the river will never show up in the maps unless it is moved out from the coastline and added to the river data as a hole.<br></p><div><p class="">-Similar example here <a href="https://osm.org/go/0YQozaPCa?way=503202265" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://osm.org/go/0YQozaPCa?way=503202265</a> but with the additional tag place=island. If a renderer assumes in addition that this place is an area and renders the places it will properly show up un the map. But even then, the object is actually never part of the river object. All tags should be removed and the polygon should be moved to the river data as a hole.<br></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">Looks like something forgotten during creating <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3329487">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3329487</a><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">I now fixed this and yes - it made no sense here (it either should be within a water area represented<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">by natural=coastline or inner way of that multipolygon).<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div class=""><div><div><p class="">-As I mentioned in the mail, we have similar issues here <a href="https://osm.org/go/55iNMeSpU-?layers=HD&way=482531057" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://osm.org/go/55iNMeSpU-?layers=HD&way=482531057</a> with the natural=land objects. Even if it is declared deprecated many years ago this tag is still actively used and there is a large number of natural=land objects in the source data. Note that logically the suggestion to use the place=island tag instead is just an implicit reimplementation of the natural=land objects.<br></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">I fixed this case. And yes, we still have many natural=land that should be removed. <br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Fortunately this misuse of place=island is not supported by renderers, so it should discourage <br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">mistagging.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Is it possible to have correctly tagged place=island on a way that is not inner way of multipolygon<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">and without natural=coastline? Maybe validators can detect such cases as likely invalid.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div class=""><div><div><div><p class="">-There are also many coastline objects in lakes like here <a href="https://osm.org/go/JzzBB0Vmt--?layers=D&way=440616441" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://osm.org/go/JzzBB0Vmt--?layers=D&way=440616441</a> . The same comments are valid as in case of rivers. The question whether this object is a lake or river is something else.<br></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">For now I also updated it to be inner of the multipolygon.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div class=""><div><div><div><p class="">-A similar lake related example is here <a href="https://osm.org/go/e6GG5QpcE-?way=615864002" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://osm.org/go/e6GG5QpcE-?way=615864002</a> but the coastline object is perfectly declared as a hole in a lake. Still there might be a problem. The coastline tag will suggest that the object will primarily be processed in the context of Planet land masses. And, because it is land-on-land it might be easily removed from the coastline data. In the similar cases any tags should be removed except the inner tag.<br></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">I removed natural=coastline.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div class=""><div><div><div><div><p class="">-Finally, the major issue that has motivated me to start this discussion, the coastline referencing from objects like fiord/bay and sea. These, usually monster sized objects, are difficult to understand. Why, who is using them, what was the purpose to upload them? Even if someone uses them to see the name variations or read the linked Wikipedia texts, the price is very high.<br></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">See also <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/imagico/diary/47432">https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/imagico/diary/47432</a> and other imagico <br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">posts criticizing this tagging method from a bit different angle.<br></div> </body>
</html>