[Tagging] natural=bay as nodes are evil
ricoz.osm at gmail.com
Wed Oct 29 13:40:34 UTC 2014
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 05:21:06PM +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> 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.
well even if the issues were nonexistent, mapping the area of a bay seems
to me like mapping an artificially introduced concept for which there is
very little real world use or recognition otherwise. Also bays with very
flat or deep geometry will result in disproportionately small areas so
mappers may feel compelled to do some ugly workarounds if the name of the
bay isn't shown as expected.
So I would say
* if there is some other reason valid to map the bay as area, do it
* something better needs to be invented for hinting the renderer.
More information about the Tagging