<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif'>
<p>It's actually true, in my mapping don't need that many extra tags. Here's a report from the top of my head from my recent mapping:</p>
<p>- The peninsula tag exists but is not rendered<br />- Valley tag exists but is not rendered, and use as an area is rare, I most often need it as an area<br />- Named ridges can be very wide, I always make them as lines currently, but areas would be more approriate in many cases<br />- Plateau exists as a proposal, not widespread use.<br />- I discovered that Fell is being used for naming slopes on hills, but due to its dual use as a landcover it's complicated.<br />- Forests, wetlands etc that today can be named and rendered often has complex geometry so a separate polygon<br /> on top with the name would be a more friendly concept for the mapper, and work better when there is mixed natural types<br />- Bay and strait exists and renders, fuzzy areas I frequently get to use.</p>
<p>There are other aspects as well, but these are those I come up with related to "fuzzy" areas.</p>
<p>The reason I wanted a separate strategic discussion on this is because when I do my research on these areas and why they are not rendered and some are rendered, I see lots and lots of friction (even without me involved ;-) ), similar to what we see in this thread, and I as a mapper feel uneasy with putting in data in our collaborative database that potentially a significant part of the community will just hate. I mean there are at least a few that would like to remove rendering for bays and strait areas and have this fuzzy area use simply to stop.<br /><br />I'd like to come to some sort of consensus, either stop doing these fuzzy areas, or do it in some other way, or continue and actively develop the current feature set to fill in gaps there are and get some more tags approved. I'm not very keen on inventing my own schemas "behind the back" of the community, but I'm sort of starting to realize that maybe that is actually how OSM is intended to work, this "free tagging" concept. Free tagging is great in many ways, but has the drawback we can get more than one tag for the same thing or more than one use for a single tag (there are a number of examples), so I'd like to use something that is a bit agreed upon.</p>
<p>Anyway, if possible I as a mapper would like to work in an as "official" way as possible, preferably only using approved tags.<br /><br />I name forests by making a polygon cutouts of an appropriate "fuzzy" size and tag it, this way there is no overlap. It works most of the time. I can't help that it feels "unofficial" to do so, as I am adding a fuzzy area in there although just not as a polygon on top. It also gets more complicated when there are more than one nature type, I had an example a while back with a name wetland with both bog and marsh. If fuzzy areas had been a more established concept, both these should probably more often be solved just by layering a naming polygon on top. Here's one example:</p>
<p><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12029528#map=14/66.8042/20.1197">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12029528#map=14/66.8042/20.1197</a></p>
<p>The shape of the polygon is more complicated than it needed to be, it's adapted to having to avoid cutting the wetlands in half. Had it been a polygon on top it would be more evenly shaped and overlap some wetland slightly. It's actually a bit unclear to me when we need to make cutouts (ie make it as an inner in a multipolygon), and when it's okay to layer on top. I use JOSM and OSM-Carto as guides, no warnings from JOSM and renderering that looks ok in OSM-Carto is what I go for.<br /><br />Thanks for your examples very interesting! As far as I understand, a few of them are quite controversial though, like the natural=plain polygon on top. I see the need for it and cannot say how it would be solved otherwise, but it is a type of mapping that I currently do not dare to do myself.</p>
<p>You are right the term "fuzzy area" is a bit too generic, a bit too fuzzy if you will, I haven't been able to come up with something better though... suggestions welcome.</p>
<p>/Anders</p>
<p id="reply-intro">On 2020-12-22 12:09, Florian Kratochwil wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">
<div id="replybody1">
<div>I've been reading with great interest in Anders' E-Mails and the resulting discussions about naming nature. It is a topic i wish OSM improves on. <br /><br />I have two points:<br /><br />1) I don't know what everybody means with "fuzzy" and without that its impossible to discuss it. <br />2) I think, in most cases there you can just map the things with existing tags as areas. Many names will be rendered by some renderers. Maybe, Anders, you need one or two new tags, because you find nothing to fit --> Just create a new tag and show us the object.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body></html>