[Tagging] Request for new tag "natural=upland" (as way) or enabling "way" for "place" tags

Amacri amacri at tiscali.it
Thu Jun 9 14:56:08 UTC 2016


Hi,

 

Tag place=isolated_dwelling, which should be used to name an almost
unpopulated place (often in the mountains), can be currently defined as node
(point) or polygon (area), but not as a way (line). Same consideration for
place=hamlet or place=locality: using way is not allowed for them.

 

It often happens that, when a place cannot be clearly delimited in the
mountains, traditional maps typically draw its text, where the text itself
outlines and shapes the covered region.

 

Check for instance this map found in Intenet:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mQlKv2pP5Qg/UWMx9WybzPI/AAAAAAAAAy8/QC6o0CsvyBQ/s1
600/M.+Erio+cartina+traccia.JPG

 

You can see that there are places, named with capital letters in this case,
where the text itself shapes the related region.

 

Examples in that map: PLATA, COSTA DEL CIVELLO, HORNA HUTA, POZZETTA SECCA,
SPIAZZI DEI MERCANTI, CHEMPLE, BOSCO SCURO, BOSCO PERGOLA, VERENETTA, etc.

 

These labels represent named sectors of specific mountains, without clear
boundaries.

 

Notice that they do not mark ridges, aretes, valleys, so we cannot use these
already existing tags to name them.

 

Sometimes they are sub-ridges, sometimes are partial woods (but the zone can
be part of a wood and sometimes includes pastures); often (or maybe usually)
they are uplands (which do not have a tag in OSM currently).

 

They are not place=region & region:type=mountain_area, which should be
dedicated to tagging consistent group of mountains and not a place of
limited size within a single mountain.

 

For place=region & region:type=mountain_area there are many examples in OSM
showing that specific boundaries of mountain group are definable and
effective and DEM can be exploited to discover the most appropriate
boundaries. Conversely, DEM might not of help at all for local names
attributed to small areas within a single mountain (e.g., a single mountain
might have a number of uplands, let's say 5 or 10).

Provided that there could be no relation between DEM and local places within
a single mountain, sometimes, like in the case here below, boundaries could
be appropriately imagined basing on the current vegetation:

 

 <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Mountains>
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Mountains (ref.
"sidearm, subpeak, i-dont-know" and related image
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:2014-05-18_11-30-25.jpg>
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:2014-05-18_11-30-25.jpg)

 

Anyway, in most cases, names refer to ancient usage of territories. Ancient
woodlands might have different boundaries than modern woods. Wood-pastures
can be human creation induced in past ages by grazing animals and
selectively clearing trees on the land. Some of them remain stable over
centuries, some don't. For instance, when in past centuries the production
of wool was a main human activity on a specific land, grass pastures were
prominent to provide natural food for sheep; now, if one tries to name a
medieval place using the boundaries of last century woods (naturally
regenerated or possibly consolidated in recent years through artificial
planting) he will improperly tag a place by forcing a border redefinition of
a different original perimeter; also tagging a wood area hypothetically
reflecting its ancient name inside a modern wood (or even intersecting an
existing wood representing current land use - e.g. a wood inside a wood or a
wood/pasture intersecting a wood) might not be correct (other than forcing
the mapper to artificially define a border to a region named in past ages
which might not be scientifically identified nowadays).

 

Provided that marking such areas with polylines can lead to inappropriate
tagging as the boundaries are not well definable, they do not deserve just a
point, as they may represent an extended area, that can be shaped through
its text (often the original shape can be found in historic maps too, e.g.,
available in municipal archives.

For these reasons, I would consider appropriate representing such places as
areas when boundaries are well definable, or through lines when there is no
deterministic way to define an actual boundary. I anyway would limit
visibility of points (nodes) to very high zoom levels (e.g., zoom level
>=15) to incentivize mappers to be as accurate as possible on tagging (lines
and areas shall be strongly privileged to simple nodes).

 

Lines (way) shall be dragged defining the appropriate curve, where each node
of the line should be placed with reference to the most common attribution
to the referenced named place (e.g., basing decision on local knowledge, on
old/authoritative documents e.g. found in local municipalities, on public
maps with right to be used in OSM, etc.).

 

Maybe a hypothetic natural=upland (to be represented as node, way or
polygon) could address them. (Or please let me know alternative proposals.).
Perhaps, natural=mountain_upland could avoid abuse of this tag.

 

They might also be considered as place=isolated_dwelling, place=hamlet or
place=locality (even if sometimes abused). Reusing already existing tags
like these ones (instead of creating a new one like "upland") leads anyway
to the consideration to enable the possibility for them to draw a line,
representing the appropriate shape of the place.

 

Defining a new tag also implies suggesting whether a symbol shall be applied
(I do not think that a symbol is appropriate here), as well as the selection
of text font (@oblique-fonts I would say), color (e.g., 7A2F18 or similar),
text size, opacity (maybe 1) min zoom (10?).

 

I would suggest this:

      [zoom >= 10] { text-size: 10; }

      [zoom >= 11] { text-size: 12; }

      [zoom >= 12] { text-size: 12; }

      [zoom >= 13] { text-size: 12; }

      [zoom >= 14] { text-size: 12; }

      [zoom >= 15] { text-size: 15; }

      [zoom >= 16] { text-size: 18; }

 

Before evaluating an RFQ proposal, I would appreciate some advise here.

 

In case a new feature would be needed, which would be the most appropriate
name? natural=upland? Please, suggest.

 

Otherwise, would you consider appropriate requesting to enable lines for
place=isolated_dwelling, place=hamlet or place=locality?

 

Thanks

 

Regards

 

Ircama

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160609/059a1e6a/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list