<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Dec 21, 2020, 16:42 by zelonewolf@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div><br></div><div class=""><div class="" dir="ltr">On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 8:01 AM Frederik Ramm <<a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">frederik@remote.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div>Our current data model is not suitable for mapping fuzzy areas. We can<br></div><div> only do "precise". Also, as you correctly pointed out, or basic tenet of<br></div><div> verifiability doesn't work well with fuzzy data.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The current data model works just fine for fuzzy areas: it requires a polygon combined with tagging that indicates that the area is "fuzzy". Since the current data model allows both polygons and tags, fuzzy areas could be mapped just fine from a technical standpoint.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Bigger problem is that with things like mountain ranges there are multiple differing opinions<br></div><div>about borders.<br></div><div><br></div><div>For example in case of <a href="https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beskid_Wyspowy">https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beskid_Wyspowy</a> multiple authors<br></div><div>give precise, unfuzzy borders (specific rivers or roads).<br></div><div><br></div><div>But different authors prefer different borders.<br></div><div><br></div><div>See for example <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borders_of_the_oceans">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borders_of_the_oceans</a><br></div><div>and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundaries_between_the_continents_of_Earth">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundaries_between_the_continents_of_Earth</a><br></div><div>for other kind of differences. Modelling this is not fitting well how OSM works.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div class=""><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div>So the one questions is, do we want fuzzy areas, the other is, if we<br></div><div> want them, how can they be established - because in our current database<br></div><div> they cannot.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> I think fuzzy areas make a lot of sense for cartography, but I strongly<br></div><div> object to people adding hand-wavy polygons to OSM for fuzzy areas.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>"Whether we want fuzzy areas" and "how they can be established" is certainly an open question that requires additional intellectual thought and consensus-building to achieve. However, the statement that they "cannot" be established in our database is simply an opinion, not a technical barrier.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div>I would not say cannot, but it is extremely poor fit to OSM data model and how<br></div><div>OSM operates.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div class=""><div><div>The statement that fuzzy polygons is "damaging" is an argument not based in fact. It is not damaging to me to have building outlines, which I do not care about. I can simply ignore them. Likewise, fuzzy areas cause no damage to people that do not care about fuzzy areas, provided that there is tagging that distinguishes them from non-fuzzy areas.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>It is not so easy. Someone mapped several fuzzy areas in my regions and all of<br></div><div>them are extremely irritating while mapping.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Building outlines are not stretching for hundreds of kilometers and do<br></div><div>not appear in places where there is nothing at all and building outlines<br></div><div>are verifiable unlike mess like <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1757627">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1757627</a><br></div><div>and other from <a href="https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/11pc">https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/11pc</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Some day I will need to check whatever it is also one big copyright violation<br></div><div>(for now I just left questions at ancient changesets that added this mess).<br></div><div><br></div> </body>
</html>