<div dir='auto'><div>There wasn't a consensus that my method was unacceptable either, which left me with no such guidance on this. If I was to rewind time and do this over again, I probably would have reached out to the community first, perhaps even put a project page on the wiki, and reached out for such guidance. But obviously, as you can see, I leapt before I looked. Such is the benefit of hindsight.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">There are two very simple reasons I used a "one point, one name" system for mapping bodies of seawater. First, I wanted to minimize my own interference with editors wanting to work on the coastline. If they choose to edit the coastline, perhaps splitting or joining parts of it, without downloading any relations first, it would minimize the time I would have needed to subsequently fix up the seawater relations, as as few of the seawater relations would have ended up broken. Second, it is a "divide and conquer" approach, meant to divide the coastline into logical parts so that as few member ways as possible would need to be used to form each of the seawater areas. A simple parent-child approach can be used to associate side bays with larger straits, gulfs or seas, either explicitly by adding the side bays to the larger bodies as child relations, or implicitly by observing that if that you can only enter a small bay from the open ocean by boat by passing through a larger seawater body, such as a sea, strait or gulf, then that small bay is a child of the larger seawater body. I did not mean at all for this scheme to imply any false shapes for seawater bodies.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">- David E. Nelson<br><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mar. 10, 2022 14:32, john whelan <jwhelan0112@gmail.com> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">Let's recap. There wasn't a consensus before you started that your method was acceptable.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That means you took a risk.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">An issue has been identified with your method perhaps you can suggest a way to deal with the identified issue?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Many Thanks </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">John</div></div><br><div class="elided-text"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Mar 10, 2022, 17:26 David E. Nelson via Talk-ca <<a href="mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>Then are you advocating for total status quo ante and completely destroying what took me five months to put together? That would crush me.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I do not support mapping bays or straits as points at all. Apart from my personal preferences, a lot of information, such as the shape and relative sizes of these bodies of seawater, and how one connects to another, would be lost.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">- David E. Nelson</div><br><div><br><div class="elided-text">On Mar. 10, 2022 14:07, Pierre Béland via Talk-ca <<a href="mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-family:'verdana' , 'helvetica' , sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div><div><div style="font-family:'verdana' , 'helvetica' , sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Il est possible d'interroger la base toponymique du Canada. Elle contient les données des provinces/territoires et les représentent sous forme géographique.<br></div><div>fr <a href="http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/recherche-de-noms-de-lieux/search">http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/recherche-de-noms-de-lieux/search</a></div><div dir="ltr">en <a href="http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/search">http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/search</a></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div></div><div dir="ltr">Esquimalt
Harbour est représenté sous forme d'un polygone tracé grossièrement tandis que le Thetis Cove est représenté par un point. De même, le long du fleuve Saint-Laurent les petites baies et chenaux (way=[bay|strait]) sont représentés par des points ou par des polygones intégrant ou non les Baies. Nous devons de notre côté adopter une approche cohérente et simple et ces outils quoique très utiles ne nous apportent pas toutes les réponses. <br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Voici ci-dessous un exemple avec hiérachies multiples où les éditions récentes ont causé beaucoup de problèmes.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Le détroit de Jacques Cartier et l'Archipel de Mingan juste au nord font normalement partie du Golfe du Saint-Laurent mais les révisions avec polygones (relation=[bay|strait]) excluent des zones alourdissent inutilement les données de la zone.</div><br clear="none"><div dir="ltr">Détroit de Jacques-Cartier<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><a shape="rect" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13515290#map=11/50.2485/-63.8834">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13515290#map=11/50.2485/-63.8834</a></div><span style="font-style:italic;color:rgb( 0 , 0 , 191 );font-weight:bold"> </span><div><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-style:italic;color:rgb( 0 , 0 , 191 );font-weight:bold"></span>J'ai actuellement un fichier de travail qui vise à renverser les éditions pour l'Estuaire maritime du Saint-Laurent qui excluaient baies et chenaux. <br></div><div dir="ltr"><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13515290#map=11/50.2485/-63.8834">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13515290#map=11/50.2485/-63.8834</a></div><div dir="ltr">C'est oui un travail colossal (une journée à date pour moins de 40% de la zone à couvrir pour la relation). <br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Je planifie de renverser les données actuelles et revenir à la situation avant les conversions des points (natural=bay) en relations (en général de très petites baies) et remettre les contours le long de la rive comme c'était au départ.<br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr"><br clear="none"></div><div dir="ltr">Je suis favorable à l'option de représenter les baies et les chenaux sous forme de points (node [natural=bay|strait]). Doit-on prévoir des exceptions lorsque le littoral côtier est très échancré ? Si oui, il faut éviter d'inclure partiellement des îles comme dans l'exemple ci-dessous.</div><div dir="ltr"><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13515290#map=11/50.2485/-63.8834">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13515290#map=11/50.2485/-63.8834</a></div><div><br clear="none"></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 clear="none"></span></div></div>
<div><br clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></div>
</div><div>
<div style="font-family:'helvetica neue' , 'helvetica' , 'arial' , sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a">
<div>
Le mercredi 9 mars 2022, 19 h 45 min 41 s UTC−5, john whelan <<a href="mailto:jwhelan0112@gmail.com">jwhelan0112@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :
</div>
<div><br clear="none"></div>
<div><br clear="none"></div>
<div><div><div><div>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><br clear="none"></div><div>In the meantime mapping as nodes at least means there are no errors.</div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>My vote would be for nodes as being the least complex solution.</div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>Cheerio John</div></div><br clear="none"><div><div><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Mar 9, 2022, 19:34 Andrew Lester <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:a-lester@shaw.ca">a-lester@shaw.ca</a>> wrote:<br clear="none"></div><blockquote style="margin:0 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 clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></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 clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>Let's look at an example local to me: Thetis Cove (<a shape="rect" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8350231">Relation: Thetis Cove (8350231) | OpenStreetMap</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 shape="rect" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6599864">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 clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></div><div style="max-width:400px;font-family:'yahoosans' , 'helvetica neue' , 'segoe ui' , 'helvetica' , 'arial' , sans-serif"><a shape="rect" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8350231"><table style="max-width:400px" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" width="400"><table style="max-width:400px;border-width:1px;border-style:solid;border-color:rgb( 224 , 228 , 233 );border-radius:2px" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="background-color:rgb( 0 , 0 , 0 );background-repeat:no-repeat;border-radius:2px 2px 0px 0px;min-height:175px" valign="top" height="175" bgcolor="#000000"><table style="width:100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="background-color:transparent;border-radius:2px 2px 0px 0px;min-height:175px" valign="top" bgcolor="transparent"><table style="width:100%;min-height:175px" border="0"><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="text-align:left;padding:15px 0 0 15px;vertical-align:top"></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="text-align:right;padding:15px 15px 0 0;vertical-align:top"><div></div></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"><table style="background-color:rgb( 255 , 255 , 255 );background-repeat:repeat;background-image:none;width:100%;max-width:400px;border-radius:0px 0px 2px 2px;border-top:1px solid rgb( 224 , 228 , 233 )" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="center"><tbody><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="background-color:#ffffff;padding:16px 0 16px 12px;vertical-align:top;border-radius:0 0 0 2px"></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style="vertical-align:middle;padding:12px 24px 16px 12px;width:99%;font-family:'yahoosans' , 'helvetica neue' , 'segoe ui' , 'helvetica' , 'arial' , sans-serif;border-radius:0 0 2px 0"><h2 style="font-size:14px;line-height:19px;margin:0px 0px 6px;font-family:'yahoosans' , 'helvetica neue' , 'segoe ui' , 'helvetica' , 'arial' , sans-serif;color:rgb( 29 , 34 , 40 );max-width:314px">Relation: Thetis Cove (8350231) | OpenStreetMap</h2><p style="font-size:12px;line-height:16px;margin:0px;color:rgb( 151 , 158 , 168 )">OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.</p></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></a><div style="width:100%;height:100%;background-color:rgba( 255 , 255 , 255 , 0.3 )"><div><div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><br clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></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 clear="none"></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 clear="none"></div><div>2. The changes get reverted, so the bodies of water return to nodes.<br clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></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 clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>Andrew<br clear="none"></div><div>Victoria, BC</div></div><div>
</div><div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-ca mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>