[Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

Richard Z. ricoz.osm at gmail.com
Tue Oct 28 11:31:24 UTC 2014


On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:18:43AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2014-10-28 10:57 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. <ricoz.osm at gmail.com>:
> 
> > Also, I am reading the arguments about estimating bay area so I am curious
> > - when was the last time someone asked about bay area in square kilometers?
> > I think it makes only sense in the context of territorial waters, fishing
> > or
> > mining rights etc.
> >
> 
> 
> The assumption is that a large bay will typically be more important than a
> smaller bay. For a good rendering you'd show only the more important bay
> names in medium zoom level and show the less important ones in higher zoom
> levels. You would use the size to decide which name to omit in case you'd
> not have space to render all of them.

so to decide which label should be bigger or rendered at lower zoom level
you would suggest to:
* map bays as areas, with all previously mentioned issues
* design a sophisticated computer algorithm to calculate the size of bays
  and derive bay importance from this

Wow.. masterpiece of mapping for the renderer I would say.

There must be easier ways of achieving this.

Richard



More information about the Tagging mailing list