<html theme="default-light" iconset="color"><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head><body text="#000000">I worked with large databases for a number
of years so my perspective might be slightly different to your own.<br>
<br>
Computer databases from a technical point of view means you are
shovelling around data. Whether it is in OSMAND or backing up the more
data in the system influences such things. In extreme cases it becomes
impossible to take a database off line to back it up within a given time
window. This can be important especially when a new version of the
operating system etc comes out. Hot backups work but talk to a database
administrator and I think you'll find they prefer the occasional cold
backup as well. Yes we use redundant disk drives and hope two don't
fail at the same time but more data does mean increased technical
challenges in keeping the database running.<br>
<br>
It means increased costs as more bandwidth is consumed etc. Adding
buildings to Africa means the off line version of the map for example
has grown in size to such an extent that many people's smartphones don't
have the memory to hold it. They have to use trimmed versions of the
map. Yes it now has lots more buildings but the cost to the end user is
not insignificant even if it means finding out about maps that omit
some details.<br>
<br>
I accept OSM works in a way that many computer professions or retired
professionals such as myself see as less than optimal but it should be
taken into consideration never the less.<br>
<br>
Cheerio John<br>
<br>
<span>Nate Wessel wrote on 10/20/2021 6:29 PM:</span><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6e36b504-aab9-92fc-7c6a-a07ab667894a@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>I'm not sure I see any real downsides here. Having a polygon
relation doesn't preclude having a label point. I assume the point
would be maintained more or less as-is and then have role=label
for the relation. The relation boundary is a bonus. <br>
</p>
<p>If people don't want to consider the relation they can just query
the point which will still be there. Literally no harm done. It's
not like the database is running out of space; and if it is, we
have bigger fish to fry!</p>
<p>I say go for it.</p>
<p>Cheers,<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-signature">
<p> Nate Wessel<br>
<small> Cartographer, Planner, Transport Nerd<br>
<a href="https://www.natewessel.com"
style="text-decoration:none;" moz-do-not-send="true"> NateWessel.com </a>
</small>
</p>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2021-10-20 6:14 p.m., john whelan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJ-Ex1Fwx9dGWbjKM9W+kYhoJ0wMijCiFZc94ssdY_H_+VOY4Q@mail.gmail.com"><meta
http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="auto">I''m not quite sure I follow you on the benefits.
Could you expand a little more in simple terms remembering not
everyone here is a GIS expert.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Thanks John</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 17:56
David E. Nelson via Talk-ca <<a
href="mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" moz-do-not-send="true">talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div
dir="auto">
<div>My primary goal was not to get these bodies of water
more visible on the map, as we all know that "tagging for
the renderer" is a bad practice. My objective was simply
to give these bodies of water area definitions, so that
more "points" on the sea could have names associated with
them.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">- David E. Nelson</div>
<div dir="auto">OSM user "DENelson83"</div>
<div dir="auto">Courtenay, BC, Canada</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Oct. 20, 2021 14:13,
Frederik Ramm <<a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">frederik@remote.org</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Hi there,</p>
<p dir="ltr">On 10/20/21 11:04, David Nelson via
Talk-ca wrote:<br>
> I recently posted a diary entry detailing my
intent to put into OSM area <br>
> definitions, implemented as multipolygon
relations, for all named bodies <br>
> of seawater in Canada, and I was just
informed that there was a <br>
> consensus in place that this should not be
done,</p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm unsure if there is a consensus. You
will note that *my* critical <br>
remarks in your diary were carefully worded to
express *my* opinion.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Personally I think that drawing such
water bodies is a hack for getting <br>
them shown on the map.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Tell me you're doing this for any other
reason than having nice blue <br>
labels? Would you be doing this work if it would
not result in visible <br>
names on the map? Probably not, right?</p>
<p dir="ltr">So the makers of the map style have a
generic rule that will draw names <br>
of water bodies, with a prominence somewhat
proportional to the size of <br>
the water body. They could also have decided to
render labels based on <br>
points but they haven't; there's plenty discussion
(and dispute) about <br>
that over on the openstreetmap-carto issue
tracker.</p>
<p dir="ltr">So now, as a consequence of that
decision, we have people draw large <br>
polygons (so that they get nice and prominent
labels). These polygons <br>
definitely make editing easier - anyone who splits
up a coastline way <br>
that is part of such a polygon will upload a new
version of the <br>
multipolygon which likely has hundreds or even
thousands of members. <br>
Look at some of the older polygons of that kind
and you will find they <br>
have amassed hundreds of versions, and the web
site times out when you <br>
wnat to view their history.</p>
<p dir="ltr">What's more, these waterbodies do not
have an observable or even well <br>
defined outer boundary, forcing waterbody mappers
to invent random <br>
straight lines on the far side of some gulf or bay
or whatever. This <br>
runs counter to our maxim of mapping what is
verifiable on the ground.</p>
<p dir="ltr">A node label would be easier to
maintain, less wrong, and put less of a <br>
burden on both mappers and data consumers. The
*only* reason people go <br>
to absurd lengths to draw these giant polygons
(often they are even <br>
nested, with one bay being part of a larger bay
being part of a gulf or <br>
so - where will it end, will someone map the
Atlantic just to get a nice <br>
label in the middle...) is that they want to see a
blue label.</p>
<p dir="ltr">That's what I object to. It is
unnecessary, and in my view, abusing a <br>
mechanism not intended for this purpose, abusing
our data model to map <br>
made-up boundaries, and all for cosmetics. It's an
ugly hack that will, <br>
I hope, go away as soon as we find a good way to
make labels based on <br>
label points.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Bye<br>
Frederik</p>
<p dir="ltr">-- <br>
Frederik Ramm ## eMail <a
href="mailto:frederik@remote.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">frederik@remote.org</a>
## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"</p>
<p dir="ltr">_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-ca mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>
</p></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-ca mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a>
</pre></blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<div>Sent from <a href="https://www.postbox-inc.com"><span style="color:
rgb(0, 157, 247);">Postbox</span></a></div></div>
</body></html>