<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">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">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">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">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>
</blockquote></div>