[Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Sun Mar 27 23:34:45 UTC 2016

The precision/accuracy is not only limited by the instruments used but 
also the knowledge used.

For some things OSM has access to very precise data. In other instances 
it is fuzzy. For some things .. the past entries has been much improved 
by new data from other sources  (sometimes opening of government sources)

No mater the precision/accuracy .. is the information 
usefull/informative? That should be the criteria for data entry, not 
its' accuracy/precision. Signifying the accuracy/precision has no formal 
tag .. I usually enter a note if I am concerned, or if I am really 
uncertain and want to wave a flag that it should be fixed .. then a 
fixme tag suits. But I have no objection to 'fuzzy' data ... provided it 
is usefull/informative.

On 28/03/2016 9:59 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> This sort of object is common in Thailand. We have many gated 
> communities here whose boundaries are not exactly known although they 
> are sometimes fairly obvious in aerial imagery because of being 
> surrounded by a wall or fence of some sort. I create a polygon using 
> Bing imagery, tag it as place=neighbourhood, name=* and add a fixme or 
> note tag indicating that the boundary is inexact. Later, if a mapper 
> has better data available they can update that boundary.
> Most polygons in OSM are simply not precise enough to define the 
> property boundaries or even the object's position exactly. Such 
> measurements are, practically speaking, beyond the capability of our 
> instruments, and we must accept that in our tagging philosophy. 
> Obviously, forests and woods, wetlands, and the scrub bordering them 
> are not clearly defined. Yet we usually tag them as areas rather than 
> nodes so they will show up in a more useful manner on a map.
> I see no problem with this whatsoever.
> Cheers,
> Dave
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Clifford Snow 
> <clifford at snowandsnow.us <mailto:clifford at snowandsnow.us>> wrote:
>     Fuzzy boundaries do have their place. Currently we use sharp
>     boundaries for landuse, but often the boundary is really fuzzy. A
>     wooded area would be a good example of a where a fuzzy boundary
>     might be employed. But the fuzziness of a wooded area may only be
>     a few meters. The fuzziness of "Shakespeare Country" is completely
>     different.
>     I agree that there are advantages to including fuzzy boundaries,
>     but we should first document how to tag these features.
>     On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Colin Smale
>     <colin.smale at xs4all.nl <mailto:colin.smale at xs4all.nl>> wrote:
>         If we can't mark polygons as fuzzy, then we can only allow
>         'accurate' polygons. Then we are back to square one, with no
>         way of accommodating these regions except for a simple node.
>         I think the problem is clear (how do we represent regions
>         whose boundaries are not precisely defined). Time to talk
>         about solutions.
>         The status quo is without any guidelines, possibly leading to
>         random creativity according to the whim of the mapper concerned.
>         Another option is to not do it, to say such things have no
>         place in OSM, and actively reject any attempt to do so (i.e.
>         if anyone dares to put "Pays de Bray" or "Shakespeare Country"
>         into OSM, the objects will be deleted and the mapper admonished).
>         Or we go for the single-node approach, and lose out on any
>         clues about the extent of the area concerned.
>         Or we accept "best-guess" polygons with "incremental refinement."
>         Any offers?
>         //colin
>         On 2016-03-27 21:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>         sent from a phone
>>>         Am 27.03.2016 um 21:16 schrieb Anders Fougner
>>>         <anders.fougner at gmail.com <mailto:anders.fougner at gmail.com>>:
>>>         Did you already consider a fuzzy tag (such as fuzzy=yes or
>>>         boundary_fuzzy=yes)?
>>         that's a makeshift which isn't quite elegant and still has
>>         similar problems (things that seem to be in might be out and
>>         vice versa).
>>         cheers,
>>         Martin
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Tagging mailing list
>>         Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>         _______________________________________________
>         Tagging mailing list
>         Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160328/67cd97bb/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list