[Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at gmail.com
Sun Mar 27 17:00:18 UTC 2016


On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 09:50:21 -0700
Clifford Snow <clifford at snowandsnow.us> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com
> > wrote:
> 
> > I agree that a rough polygon seems better than a node because it
> > allows to estimate the size (a new relation datatype would even be
> > better, like a collection of (existing/already mapped) things
> > inside (role) and outside (role) that would serve the same purpose
> > but make it clear that it is only an estimate / that there aren't
> > clear borders anyway).
> >
> > I don't like boundary=informal though. It should be something more
> > verbose regarding what kind of region this is (natural/geographic,
> > (low) mountain range, area of lakes, forest, desert, plains,
> > cultural, ethnographic, wine, etc.)
> >
> 
> A while back one of the conversations on the mailing list was about
> adding neighborhood boundaries. There was a lot of concern that many
> neighborhood boundaries are not clearly define which would result in
> boundary disputes. How is adding a rough boundary for an informal
> area any different?
> 
> Worse, if we start adding informal boundaries I can see someone
> wanting to add the Cascadia [1] (Independance Movement) boundary.
> 
> 
> 
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29
> 
> Clifford
> 

Given that idea of tagging natural=bay as polygons is controversial I
am not expecting this to be a good idea.

Areas with completely undefined borders should not be stored in OSM.



More information about the Tagging mailing list