[Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvinen at helsinki.fi
Mon Oct 27 10:33:48 UTC 2014

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, Christoph Hormann wrote:

> On Sunday 26 October 2014, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > > Furthermore the outer edge of a bay, i.e. the edge that is not
> > > coastline is usually not well defined and would require an
> > > arbitrary cutoff.
> >
> > Yes, cutoff is unfortunately quite arbitrary. But node placement is
> > completely arbitrary - and lacks important information.
> I don't see what information is missing and cannot be easily determined 
> automatically with a properly placed node that is contained in an 
> area - except for the outer edge of course, which is usually 
> ill-defined though as you said yourself.

Any data consumer could quite easily, if not trivially, detect that 
fuzzy edge in this case if it cares about it in the first place (I've
have some trouble in figuring out a sensible use case in which it would 
make a difference to know where the fuzzy border of a bays is).

Besides, we really need to deal with object that have fuzzy borders 
already, e.g., some of the natural=wetland object come to my mind as an 
example. I quickly browsed through the related pages and discussions, for 
some strange reason the fuzzy border issue seems to not have been raised 
there at all? I suppose it's currently left solely to mappers
discretion where to put the the edges.


More information about the Tagging mailing list