[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Enhancing natural=peak tag

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 9 July 2014 02:56, Daniel Koć <daniel at xn--ko-wla.pl> wrote:
> but for now I'm very surprised how the
> low hanging fruit can be not picked for so long without anybody noticing it,
> even if all the code is already waiting to be merged (
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/705 ).

Two reasons. First, we are trying to clean up current problems with
the style sheet first, rather than adding new features. Also,
development of the stylesheet has been put on hold for like four
years, so there is still quite a large backlog. Second, sometimes
things seem easy, while they are not. In the case of fountains, do we
really want an icon for every fountain? What about a tiny fountain in
someones garden? A small ventilation fountain in a pond? Even for
slightly larger public fountains, an icon might attract more attention
than it deserved.

> For me it tells us clearly that at least we should track such things better.
> If we made just a simple wiki table named "Accepted propositions - rendering
> state" with current comments from rendering team ("done", "todo - from
> when", "wontfix - reasons", "undecided - problems to be solved"), it could
> help us connecting loose ends a lot! I can even do it myself, but I need to
> know it would be used at all. I don't know yet how big is the gap between
> default tagging and default rendering.

First of all, we are past the state where every tag can be rendered.
For example, I believe that fire hydrants are an officially accepted
tag. That doesn't mean that we should render them on
openstreetmap-carto. Same thing for underground cables, etc.

However, if you could create a table on the wiki that links accepted
features to their Github id (if existing), that would be helpful, I
think. But as I said, the focus at the moment is not on adding
features - but that might change in a couple of months. By the way,
the number of features officially accepted is surprisingly small. For
example, there are only about 5 officially accepted shop types (but
much more implicitly accepted ones, of course).

> the remark about the carto not
> being made for all the POI icons was against my intuition.

If I understand Andy correctly, he exaggerated a bit in order to
direct developer effort towards fixing the features we currently have,
rather than adding new features. As I said, we started with quite a
mess (and some areas of the code still are, although it's much better
than two years ago), it's better to fix these first before adding new
stuff to the mess.

> I would fully
> agree if that meant simply "there's more to rendering than POI's", but I'm
> not sure. I would rather include all such icons in general, because there
> was a reason somebody wrote it, a community consensus was established and it
> immediately promotes using such quality-approved tags. If we want to avoid
> the clutter (which is a noble aim in itself), don't try to avoid it
> altogether, but rather set the reasonable zoom threshold.

I don't think for example fire hydrants should be rendered at any zoom level.

About which POI to render and which not, see also the discussion I
tried to start here:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/660

-- Matthijs