<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
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. <br>
<br>
<br>
See this examples: <br>
<br>
Example 1: I wanted to name a part of a forest. I mapped a
landuse=forest in a landuse=forest: <br>
Big one (Already existed, Wienerwald): <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4625">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4625</a><br>
Small one (Tulbinger Forst): <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11179559">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11179559</a><br>
The border of the smaller one is not 100% clear, there are no maps
or signs showing the extent, but some borders (streets, streams) are
clear. Maybe sometime someone changes it, because he thinks,
"Tulbinger Forst" is bigger or smaller. I dont think it will result
in a big edit war. <br>
I get a warning in JOSM for two overlapping landuses of the same
kind. <br>
--> Is this a fuzzy line? I think no<br>
<br>
Example 2: A (natural) plain. I drew the polygon line along the edge
as it can be seen in the Austrian laser scan. <br>
(Eferdinger Becken) <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/831292001">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/831292001</a><br>
--> Is this a fuzzy line? I'm not sure. There are plains out
there with less significant edges where lines would be fuzzier. <br>
The humanitarian style renders the name (small in the center):
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/831292001#map=12/48.2840/14.0992&layers=H">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/831292001#map=12/48.2840/14.0992&layers=H</a><br>
<br>
Example 3: regions. In Lower Austria, there are two regions, which
together have a well defined outside border (Rivers and
administrative borders), but the border between themselves is not
that clear (but could be mapped in more detail with more geological
knowledge). <br>
Weinviertel: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11317717">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11317717</a><br>
Waldviertel: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11319139">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11319139</a><br>
--> For me, there is one part fuzzy, the rest ist not: It is this
line: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827580755">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827580755</a><br>
For me, the information if a village or any other object is in the
Weinviertel is something OSM <b>must</b> know. Or if someone
searches for "Weinviertel", because he doesnt know it, he must get
an answer. Everyone living around here knows and uses those names. <br>
I don't see any problem in mapping it like this. <br>
Opentopomap renders them nicely: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://opentopomap.org/#map=9/48.6420/16.1554">https://opentopomap.org/#map=9/48.6420/16.1554</a><br>
<br>
Example 4: Mateusz' example: polish mezoregions: <a
href="https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/11pc">https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/11pc</a><br>
Is this fuzzy? I think yes. But I wouldnt call this "a mess". I dont
know what those regions are and how it is verifiable, but from the
geometry it looks consistently mapped. Do those lines hurt anybody?
I think, if the place=region had established subtags, this could be
mapped better and help renderers and data users to handle them
better.<br>
<br>
Oh, I just see that in July 2020 someone wrote in the english
place=region wiki (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dregion">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dregion</a>)
that the tag is discouraged. Thats a pity. Of course not all region
boundaries are administrative. Was it discussed here (I didnt find
it)? <br>
<br>
My conclusions: <br>
I see no problem when everybody maps as precise as possible, which
includes so fuzzy things. <br>
If we have few edit wars as the price for lots of new name labels
boosting outdoor maps, thats a price I<br>
m willing to pay. <br>
Most of the fuzzy objects are somewhere rendered (and opentopomap
does is best). <br>
<br>
Best Florian<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.12.20 um 11:28 schrieb Anders
Torger:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ef638d2e855822e861ee6cc9de317340@torger.se">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Thanks Kevin, point taken ;-)</p>
<p>To summarize. This is the way I interpret this situation:</p>
<p>OSM is a geodatabase, with a design that makes some geodata
suitable for it, others less so. The overall design is not
likely to change to accept more types of geodata, instead we
would rely on extra data sources to generate maps which require
data that is not suitable for OSM, such as elevation data for
contour lines and possibly fuzzy areas for names.</p>
<p>If fuzzy areas fit into the current OSM database or not is
something we in the community don't agree on. Some of us think
it does, others don't. Some think they are useful to making
maps, but still not suitable for OSM. Some think they are not
really useful or at least not important for maps either, they
haven't seen a need for them.</p>
<p>It's not only about generating maps, it's also about being able
to ask the database if location X is located in the Red Sea /
Sahara desert / other named but fuzzy area, or not and similar
questions. If we want OSM to be able to cater such queries is
really interesting and something that haven't been discussed
much so far.</p>
<p>It's hard to make constructive discussions on solutions when
there is no agreement on that there is a problem that needs
solving. Here we are exactly in that situation, we have not
really come to the point to agree on a problem to be able to
discuss solutions.</p>
<p>My personal OSM-related interest for the time being is in map
generation especially in rural and "uninhabited" areas, and
making mainstream OSM-based maps better in those areas. OSM
database is however both a superset and a subset of the data
needed for generating these type of maps. While I personally
desire that OSM database and its default renderer should be
developed in a direction to "fill in the gaps" this is not a
goal of OSM at large. I was naive in the beginning and thought
that was the case or at least a desire shared by many in the
community and that the type of map features I need would be seen
as mainstream, but clearly it is not.</p>
<p>Instead the enduring view is that the type of mapping I look
into is better suited for OSM combined with extra data sources
on the side and a custom renderer. Although I rather would see
OSM moving towards grasping over a larger feature set which
includes more of what I believe to be quite central to classic
cartography and "what should be in any map", I stand more alone
on that desire than I thought I would. This does not mean that
there is any specific hostility against cartography, but there
seems to be quite different views on what features that are
important and not in maps. In other words many aspects that I
thought was obviously important is not considered that by
many/most OSM contributors.</p>
<p>This fuzzy area thing touches exactly on such a subject and is
therefore quite difficult to discuss.</p>
<p>I think though it's already quite safe to say that there is not
enough interest to make this a mainstream feature of OSM. It's
also safe to say that those small scale fuzzy areas already
exist in OSM and is manifested in various ways, so there are
clearly not just I that need them in mapping. But I have no idea
how we could move from that state.</p>
<p>/Anders</p>
<p id="reply-intro">On 2020-12-22 00:16, Kevin Kenny wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left:
#1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">
<div id="replybody1">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="v1gmail_quote">
<div>Anders has been a bit confrontational</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>