[Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil

moltonel 3x Combo moltonel at gmail.com
Tue Oct 28 16:21:06 UTC 2014

On 28/10/2014, Richard Z. <ricoz.osm at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>:
>> 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

The issues are real, but we disagree on how big they are. I'm of the
opinion that they aren't worth fussing over, but YMMV.

> * design a sophisticated computer algorithm to calculate the size of bays
>   and derive bay importance from this

Finding the size of an area is actually much simpler than your
proposed algorythm. It's implemented in stock PostGIS. It doesn't
involve tuning or heuristics. It's aready used in many places in the
default osm rendering (osm-carto). It is done at import time and is
"free" from the map designer's POV.

More information about the Tagging mailing list