<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>I really like an idea of separate database/layer for such fuzzy objects.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Especially as there are multiple competing ideas for when specific<br></div><div>object ends and even how many continents/oceans we have.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Nov 8, 2020, 06:51 by tomasstraupis@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>If we're talking about fuzzy features (which do not have specific<br></div><div>boundaries) like mountain ranges, bays, straits etc. the problem is<br></div><div>that just a point is not enough, text must have direction, sometimes<br></div><div>even curvature to follow the geometry of the object ant thus "connect"<br></div><div>the label with the object in our consciousness. Additionally, for some<br></div><div>objects, say bays, we need totally different set of labels for<br></div><div>different zooms and that can only be calculated if we have a polygon<br></div><div>(check water labels and how they change<br></div><div>https://topo.openmap.lt/#t/13/54.33547/24.36494/0/0/ starting with<br></div><div>zoom 16 there is actually a lot of labels placed in different places<br></div><div>of the waterbody). But placing polygons for fuzzy objects have<br></div><div>problems:<br></div><div> * borders are not verifiable on the ground (as there is actually no<br></div><div>border - object is "fuzzy")<br></div><div> * imprecisely drawn boundaries of such objects look bad in the<br></div><div>editor, intersect with other objects and this kind of pushes mappers<br></div><div>to simply use boundaries of existing features (like coastlines) which<br></div><div>makes those object waaaaaay too precise for fuzzy objects.<br></div><div> My personal opinion is that such objects could be moved to a<br></div><div>separate database specific to fuzzy objects. That database should not<br></div><div>have ANY connection to the main database so that mappers would not be<br></div><div>able to reuse geometries of the main database. Thus license would be<br></div><div>the same, toolchain would be the same, data could later be used<br></div><div>alongside the data from the "main" database. Everyone should be happy,<br></div><div>both arguments (Christophs and Frederiks) against such objects would<br></div><div>be satisfied?<br></div><div><br></div><div>-- <br></div><div>Tomas<br></div><div><br></div><div>_______________________________________________<br></div><div>Tagging mailing list<br></div><div>Tagging@openstreetmap.org<br></div><div>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div> </body>
</html>