<div dir="auto">An excellent point and I agree that before changing or cleaning up these areas we should have come to a consensus about how areas which are part of larger areas should be mapped.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In the meantime mapping as nodes at least means there are no errors.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">My vote would be for nodes as being the least complex solution.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Cheerio John</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Mar 9, 2022, 19:34 Andrew Lester <<a href="mailto:a-lester@shaw.ca">a-lester@shaw.ca</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;color:#000000"><div>Personally, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on whether these bodies of water should be mapped as relations or not. The relations do make the data more complicated to manage and there's a higher chance of a newer contributor accidentally breaking things, and it does require some arbitrary boundaries. On the flip-side, the relations do provide more useful information to data consumers and renderers by better-representing the area of each body. I'd probably lean more towards keeping things as nodes if forced to choose, but my opinion wouldn't be strong enough to revert relations to nodes based solely on this factor.<br></div><div><br></div><div>However, I don't agree with the way in which the relations were implemented. David chose to use a personal "one point, one name" guideline, where no bodies of water overlap each other. In my opinion, this is objectively wrong and has led to flawed data.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Let's look at an example local to me: Thetis Cove (<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8350231" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8350231</a>). With the way David has mapped things, the interior of this bay is its own body of water and the ways are not included in the larger Esquimalt Harbour relation (<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6599864" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6599864</a>). Semantically, if someone were to sail a boat into this bay with the data in its current form, they would be "leaving Esquimalt Harbour and entering Thetis Cove". I think most would agree that this is demonstrably wrong. This bay is just as much a part of Esquimalt Harbour as the rest of the water. When looking at the Esquimalt Harbour relation above, we can see similar issues with Price Bay, Plumper Bay, the large Constance Cove to the southeast, and several other smallers bodies of water. In reality, all the water inside the Fisgard Lighthouse/Duntze Head line is part of Esquimalt Harbour and should be included in that relation, but these areas have been arbitrarily excluded due to David's personal guideline.<br></div><div><br></div><div>There are now many examples like this all around Canada's coastline, where "child" bodies of water have not been included in the logical "parent" relation. At this point, the community needs to come to a consensus on whether the current state of the data is acceptable or not.</div><div><br></div><div>If it's determined that the data isn't okay, I think we have two options:</div><div>1. Someone fixes the data, which would be a massive undertaking, since each of the "parent" and "child" relations would need to be inspected to see what needs to be included where. It would have been easier to manage this task while the edits were being made initially, but the community wasn't aware of the guideline that was going to be used.<br></div><div>2. The changes get reverted, so the bodies of water return to nodes.<br></div><div><br></div><div>As you can probably tell from everything above, I do not believe that the current state of the data is acceptable. Now we need others to weigh in and for the community to come to a consensus (something that should have occurred before such a massive project was undertaken).<br></div><div><br></div><div>Andrew<br></div><div>Victoria, BC<br></div><div><br></div><hr id="m_-4619751065975035505zwchr"><div><b>From: </b>"Nate Wessel" <<a href="mailto:bike756@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">bike756@gmail.com</a>><br><b>To: </b>"talk-ca" <<a href="mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a>><br><b>Sent: </b>Sunday, March 6, 2022 11:05:11 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Talk-ca] Définition de zones fluviale / cotières vs chenaux de navigation ou baies<br></div><div><br></div><div><p>This last month, for my own reasons, I happened to be doing some
extensive edits along the coastline boundary between Quebec and
Nunavut. I've noticed that the places where David has been editing
are now much better mapped, and more manageable in terms of
way-size and relation alignment than the areas where he hasn't
(yet?) been active. <br>
</p>
<p>I won't purport to defend all his edits since they are so
numerous, but I will say that in all it's clear to me that he has
been having a net-positive influence on Canada's coastline data.
If he is the last editor on so many coastal relations, I would
argue it is because the data has been quite stagnant, not because
he is exerting some inappropriate influence. <br>
</p>
<p>Cheers,<br>
</p>
<div>
<p> Nate Wessel<br>
<small> Cartographer, Planner, Transport Nerd<br>
<a href="https://www.natewessel.com" style="text-decoration:none" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"> NateWessel.com </a> </small>
</p>
</div>
<div>On 2022-03-06 13:38, Martin Chalifoux
via Talk-ca wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
Je suis d’accord avec Pierre. Briser les plans d’eau en morceaux
pour cartographier des baies c'est inutile et ça ajoute une
complexité sans ajouter de fonctionnalité. Le POI est bien adéquat
pour une baie. De plus les voies (ways) qui sont intégrées a de
multiples relations pour former plusieurs polygones adjacents
(wood, bay, lake, etc) c’est vraiment plus complexe et difficile à
maintenait. Si il y avait un avantage je ne dit pas mais j’en voit
aucun. La réalité est que la limite réelle d’une baie est rien
d’officiel, c’est un peu arbitraire. Alors le POI au centre
approximatif de la baie c est suffisant. Toute ceci est un bel
exemple de temps inutilement passé a faire des modifications
complexes qui ajoute aucune nouvelle information ni précision à
OSM. “If not broken, don’t fix it"
<div>Cheers<br>
<div><br>
<blockquote>
<div>On Mar 6, 2022, at 12:42, Pierre Béland via
Talk-ca <<a href="mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:'verdana','helvetica',sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>David continue de façon
unilatérale à imposer son modèle de définition
des baies et chenaux/estuaires sous forme de
relations et contrairement à ce qu'il exprime,
la communauté n'a pas approuvé sa proposition
lors des discussions sur talk-ca en octobre. <br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2021-October/010127.html" rel="nofollow nofollow noopener noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2021-October/010127.html</a><br></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">Vous
trouverez ci-dessous un résumé des actions et
discussions à date via changesets et un
tableau démontrant à quel point la démarche de
David est unilatérale. Vous trouverez
également des requêtes Overpass qui permette
d'analyser les actions de David et autre
solution ailleurs. Et à la fin, je fais des
propositions pour progresser dans ce désaccord
avec David. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">A
date, David a couvert les côtes ouest, est et
nord du Canada et en partie semble-t-il les
États-Unis. Le tableau ci-dessous à partir de
Taginfo, Taginfo-CA et Overpass montre comment
David agit de façon unilatérale avec 12150 des
18937 relations (64%) où il est le dernier
éditeur. David pourrait confirmer, mais il
semble que pour la majorité des baies,
celles-ci existaient déja sous forme de points
et David a pris la liberté de transformer ces
points sous forme de relations alourdissant
grandement la base de données.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
Nombre d'objets OpenStreetMap, 2022-03-03<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<table cellspacing="0" border="0"><colgroup width="118"></colgroup><colgroup width="85" span="3"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td height="17" align="left">natural=bay</td><td align="right"> Monde</td><td align="right">Canada</td><td align="right">David</td></tr><tr><td height="17" align="left">Nœud</td><td align="right"> 49 440</td><td align="right">4 692</td><td align="right">0</td></tr><tr><td height="17" align="left">Chemin</td><td align="right"> 2 988</td><td align="right">40</td><td align="right">5</td></tr><tr><td height="17" align="left">Relation</td><td align="right">18 937</td><td align="right">12 150</td><td align="right">13 050</td></tr><tr><td height="17" align="left"><br>
</td><td align="left"><br>
</td><td align="left"><br>
</td><td align="left"><br>
</td></tr><tr><td height="17" align="left">natural=strait
</td><td align="right"> Monde</td><td align="right">Canada</td><td align="right">David</td></tr><tr><td height="17" align="left">Nœud</td><td align="right"> 1 449</td><td align="right">49</td><td align="right">0</td></tr><tr><td height="17" align="left">Chemin</td><td align="right"> 1 615</td><td align="right">12</td><td align="right">5</td></tr><tr><td height="17" align="left">Relation</td><td align="right"> 2 463</td><td align="right">1 636</td><td align="right">1 728</td></tr></tbody></table>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span>
<div dir="ltr">Il
transforme les points en relations et coupe
des polygones existants (example <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2427871" rel="nofollow nofollow noopener noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2427871</a>)
qui ne correspondent pas à sa vision de
décrire les baies, estuaires, chenaux. David
n'assure pas la cohexistance d'éléments
qu'il ajoute tel chenal local ou baie avec
des objets existants tels pour le Fleuve ou
Golf du Saint-Laurent.</div>
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">Il y a
pourtant des solutions simples telles que baies
sous forme de points et détroits/chenaux sous
forme de points ou lignes. La requête Overpass
ci-dessous permet de voir au sud de l'Angleterre
la représentation de baies en points et de
chenaux en lignes et non en polygones /
relations.<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><a href="http://overpass-turbo.eu/?Q=%5Bout%3Axml%5D%5Btimeout%3A100%5D%3B%0A%28%0A%20%20relation%5Bnatural~'bay%7Cstrait'%5D%28%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D%29%3B%0Away%5Bnatural~'bay%7Cstrait'%5D%28%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D%29%3B%0Anode%5Bnatural~'bay%7Cstrait'%5D%28%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D%29%3B%0A" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://overpass-turbo.eu/?Q=%5Bout%3Axml%5D%5Btimeout%3A100%5D%3B%0A(%0A%20%20relation%5Bnatural~'bay%7Cstrait'%5D(%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D)%3B%0Away%5Bnatural~'bay%7Cstrait'%5D(%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D)%3B%0Anode%5Bnatural~'bay%7Cstrait'%5D(%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D)%3B%0A</a>)%3B%0Aout%20meta%3B%3E%3B%20out%20meta%3B%0A&C=51.38898;0.61764;14<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">Cela
permet la cohexistance avec d'autres objets OSM
et évite de complexifier les données.<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">Voici
ici un exemple avant / après des modifications
de David pour l'Archipel des Îles de Mingan
(distance sur la côte d'environ 30km).</div>
<div dir="ltr">Avant
- 34 noeuds natural=bay<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><a href="http://overpass-turbo.eu/?Q=%5Bout%3Axml%5D%5Btimeout%3A100%5D%0A%5Bdate%3A%272021-09-01T00%3A00%3A00Z%27%5D%3B%0A%28%0A%20%20relation%5Bnatural~%27bay%7Cstrait%27%5D%28%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D%29%3B%0Away%5Bnatural~%27bay%7Cstrait%27%5D%28%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D%29%3B%0Anode%5Bnatural~%27bay%7Cstrait%27%5D%28%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D%29%3B%0A%29%3B%0Aout%20meta%3B%3E%3B%20out%20meta%3B%0A&C=50.25203;-63.73512;11" rel="nofollow nofollow noopener noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://overpass-turbo.eu/?Q=%5Bout%3Axml%5D%5Btimeout%3A100%5D%0A%5Bdate%3A'2021-09-01T00%3A00%3A00Z'%5D%3B%0A(%0A%20%20relation%5Bnatural~'bay%7Cstrait'%5D(%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D)%3B%0Away%5Bnatural~'bay%7Cstrait'%5D(%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D)%3B%0Anode%5Bnatural~'bay%7Cstrait'%5D(%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D)%3B%0A)%3B%0Aout%20meta%3B%3E%3B%20out%20meta%3B%0A&C=50.25203;-63.73512;11</a><br></div>
<div dir="ltr">Après
- 1335 chemins, 50 relations<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><a href="http://overpass-turbo.eu/?Q=%5Bout%3Axml%5D%5Btimeout%3A100%5D%0A%3B%0A%28%20%20relation%5Bnatural~%27bay%7Cstrait%27%5D%28%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D%29%3B%0Away%5Bnatural~%27bay%7Cstrait%27%5D%28%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D%29%3B%0Anode%5Bnatural~%27bay%7Cstrait%27%5D%28%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D%29%3B%0A%29%3B%0Aout%20meta%3B%3E%3B%20out%20meta%3B%0A&C=50.25203;-63.73512;11" rel="nofollow nofollow noopener noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://overpass-turbo.eu/?Q=%5Bout%3Axml%5D%5Btimeout%3A100%5D%0A%3B%0A(%20%20relation%5Bnatural~'bay%7Cstrait'%5D(%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D)%3B%0Away%5Bnatural~'bay%7Cstrait'%5D(%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D)%3B%0Anode%5Bnatural~'bay%7Cstrait'%5D(%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D)%3B%0A)%3B%0Aout%20meta%3B%3E%3B%20out%20meta%3B%0A&C=50.25203;-63.73512;11</a><br></div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">Voici
à nouveau les deux Changesets où j'ai discuté
des modifications avec David. Après avoir révisé
partiellement les données, celui-ci s'est opposé
à aller plus loin.<br>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span><a shape="rect" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114545684" rel="nofollow nofollow noopener noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114545684</a></span><br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117963247" rel="nofollow nofollow noopener noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117963247</a><br></div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>Je répète à David à nouveau que sa
façon unilatérale d'agir est inacceptable. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">A ce
point il faut trouver une solution pour
poursuivre. David a toujours le choix de
communiquer avec le Comité des données (DWG) de
l'OSMF pour valider sa démarche. <br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">Sinon je
demande à David de revenir en arrière pour les
relations liées au Fleuve et au Golf du
Saint-Laurent. Après examen des données, on
pourrait aussi voir utile de réviser ailleurs.<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">Nous
referons le point au cours de la semaine. Si aucun
progrès, je renverserai les <br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">modifications
effectuées par David.</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">cordialement<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<span style="font-style:italic;color:rgb(0,0,191);font-weight:bold"></span></div>
<div><span style="font-style:italic;color:rgb(0,0,191);font-weight:bold"><font style="background-color:inherit" face="garamond, new york, times, serif">Pierre
</font><br>
</span></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div id="m_-4619751065975035505ydp1ee90560yahoo_quoted_6958939028">
<div style="font-family:'helvetica neue','helvetica','arial',sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a">
<div> Le lundi 28 février 2022, 20 h 37 min
03 s UTC−5, David E. Nelson <<a href="mailto:denelson83@yahoo.ca" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">denelson83@yahoo.ca</a>>
a écrit : </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div id="m_-4619751065975035505ydp1ee90560yiv9529175130">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>I came up with this "one
point, one name" guideline for the
simple reason that it is meant to
minimize interference with coastline
edits. If an editor subsequently goes
in and updates a stretch of coastline,
as few seawater relations as possible
are broken, and it makes my maintenance
of this dataset, aided by the OSM
Inspector utility, easier.
<div><br clear="none">
</div>
<div>- David E. Nelson</div>
</div>
<div id="m_-4619751065975035505ydp1ee90560yiv9529175130yqt22178">
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-ca mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
<a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>_______________________________________________<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></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>