[Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at gmail.com
Sun Mar 27 17:35:34 UTC 2016


On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 19:16:42 +0200
Anders Fougner <anders.fougner at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Den 27. mars 2016 19.00.18 CEST, skrev Mateusz Konieczny
> <matkoniecz at gmail.com>:
> >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.
> 
> If I understand correctly what you mean (?), I completely disagree. 
> Maps are really useless if they cannot contain names of such features
> that are hard to define the borders of (bays, cliffs, seas,
> neighborhoods, etc.). Where's the border of e.g. the North Sea, the
> Bay/Gulf of Bothnia, and Skagerrak, and why should they not be on the
> map? (they are probably indicated on every useful map of northern
> Europe or Scandinavia) 

I never said that these should not appear on maps. It is about
unfortunate fact such objects have no clear definitions - I had recent
unfortunate case of somebody expecting clear definition of borders of
Carpathians.

In that case answer strongly depends on who and how defines Carpathians.

For examples see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_Mountains
with articles in other languages. Even basic facts like length and list 
of countries where this mountain range is located are different.

OSM is not a proper place to store all possible definitions of "border
of Carpathians" or pretend to have the perfect one.



More information about the Tagging mailing list