[Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

Richard Z. ricoz.osm at gmail.com
Mon Oct 27 11:16:35 UTC 2014

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:33:48PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> 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.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_proposals_regarding_landuse,_geology,_geography_and_vegetation (my early draft for the purpose of getting some overview over similar issues)


More information about the Tagging mailing list