[Tagging] R: Landmarks and viewpoints
amacri at tiscali.it
Fri Jun 17 23:53:04 UTC 2016
Very interesting clarification and links, thanks Christoph, the problem is
well spotted there.
A general concept would be related to pros and cons of an automated model,
able to differentiate rendering of rural PoIs (e.g., a query related to a
newly introduced automated density layer or to manually mapped polygons),
versus a manual one, totally relying on the mapping quality of each single
element (requiring to define and maintain a per-element conventional
attribute). Anyway the fascinating idea of a sort of automated density
correlation would be future proof from one side, for being able to
dynamically manage the development of geographic areas which might change
over time, but from the other it is true that it goes beyond any reasonable
landmark tag (provided that this would be the most appropriate attribution
for such aspect and this I do not know) falls into the manual tagging model
and might be a feasible approach to differentiate rural/urban areas (at
least for the most significant cases) even if mappers shall judiciously
manage it case by case.
It is anyway worthwhile to consider a more generalized approach of such
attribute (the PoIs that I mentioned are not the only ones which can take
advantage of a differentiated rendering approach).
Da: Christoph Hormann [mailto:chris_hormann at gmx.de]
Inviato: venerdì 17 giugno 2016 20:26
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Landmarks and viewpoints
On Friday 17 June 2016, Amacri wrote:
> Many trekkers and bikers consider that the current Mapnik style
> provides an unsightly rendering of mountain areas and I am with them.
> Among the many aspects that would need improvement, there is a need
> that notable places which are effective references in a mountainous
> area could not only be shown at high zoom level (e.g., >=16 or >=17)
> but also at medium zooms (e.g., >=13 or 14), in accordance with the
> common practice used in standard topographic maps (e.g., 1:50000 -
> 1:25000 - 1:10000).
Keep in mind that because Mercator is a variable scale projection there
is no direct relationship between zoom level and scale. At a typical
resolution computer screen z13 for example can be somewhere between
about 1:70000 (Equator) and 1:8000 (northern Greenland).
> With this preamble, it might appear rather complex to discuss about a
> proposal aiming to address a different visibility of reference
> elements in scarcely populated places. Would it be possible or this
> will lead too far away from the actual OSM/osm-carto implementation
> and trend?
Something in that direction has already been discussed:
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging