[Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil
chris_hormann at gmx.de
Mon Oct 27 15:24:39 UTC 2014
On Monday 27 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> > This extremely simple approach will probably result in reasonable
> > polygons for label placement in more than half the cases. You can
> > easily improve the algorithm of course to properly deal with
> > various special cases, in particular the case of small islands
> > within a bay deserves consideration.
> That's a very fragile algorythm.
Have you tried it?
On the contrary - due to its simplicity it is a very robust algorithm,
it will hardly ever generate something completely wrong and fail
gracefully in difficult cases. And as said it is strait away to extend
this approach to specifically take care of cases where it does not work
> [...] And until you get something working
> reasonably well upstreamed in all data consumers, we mappers should
> bite the bullet and map bays as areas
No, that is not how OSM works. The mappers can choose a method to map
they deem appropriate - which in this case quite clearly is nodes (less
than 0.5 percent ways and relations according to taginfo). If you want
to get the mappers to change their mapping you need to convince them
that it is better to do so and just making it easier for those
rendering maps is not a convincing argument, even in cases where unlike
here there is no additional work involved. Of course by not rendering
bays mapped as nodes in the standard style you could 'encourage'
mappers to change their approach. This however would be mapping for
the renderer which is generally frowned upon.
I can't help but notice that in the whole discussion here no argument
has been put formward indicating a practical advantage of bays mapped
as polygons other than the ease of rendering labels.
> (in other words, not treat them
> any different than any other area-like obbjects in osm).
You mean like place=town, place=city etc?
More information about the Tagging