[Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

moltonel 3x Combo moltonel at gmail.com
Mon Oct 27 14:48:19 UTC 2014

On 27/10/2014, Richard Z. <ricoz.osm at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:44:01AM +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> I'm really curious what your method to figure out the bay area from
>> the node is, because even as a human I find that most bay nodes can
>> lead to many different interpretations.
> you don't. Al that the node says is "somewhere there is a bay called
> XXX"

I was asking a rhetorical question, really ;)

> Most of the time there is very little agreement or hard data about the
> extents and hierarchy of bay naming. Sources from different countries will
> make different subdivisions. Great fun with multipolygons and even with
> perfect tagging and computer algorithm we get approximate results at best.

Yes, that's the main problem with bay mapping, and probably
contributes to the fact that we have so many bays mapped as nodes,
because mappers themselves don't know the extent of the bay (good
luck, algorythm ! :p).

But we regularly map approximate features, nothing new here. And I'll
always prefer a "source=guesswork" polygon over a node automatically
turned into an area using computer-mediated guesswork from a developer
that didn't see the area.

More information about the Tagging mailing list