[Tagging] Using multipolygons to map bays in Alaska

Dave Swarthout daveswarthout at gmail.com
Fri Nov 16 12:48:44 UTC 2018

That node too was left behind by mistake. I just now deleted it.

The problem with using a way is that I can't see it. And I bet most current
map products can't render it either. That someone with special cartographic
skills can render it is good to know but it doesn't really help my
situation. If those nodes can do the job you claim they for them, then
someone needs to make it work that way on OSM, or OSMAnd.

I don't know why Daniel made the choice to map that huge bay with
multipolygons but calling it pollution isn't going to help matters.

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 6:26 PM Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de> wrote:

> On Friday 16 November 2018, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> >
> > To answer Christoph's question about Chickaloon Bay and the node for
> > the same bay, I simply forgot to delete the redundant node after I
> > finished. Interestingly, the label for the new multipolygon fell only
> > slightly to the east of the node so its placement was fairly
> > accurate. However, in order to see the name on that node, one must
> > zoom in so far that you have no idea whatsoever of the physical
> > extent of the actual object. I know, that's a rendering issue. Still,
> > the reason many of us enjoy mapping is so we can see the results of
> > our labors somehow, preferably on a map, so it's a powerful incentive
> > to do things in such a way that results in visualization. There is an
> > enduring tension in the OSM world that we're always seeking to
> > balance and this discussion is largely about where that balance lies.
> Yes, as already said i understand that and this is why i do not
> primarily blame you or other mappers for using non-verifiable drawings
> to map bays and straits but Daniel for incentivizing that for
> ultimately selfish reasons.
> As a data user i am relatively relaxed on this because it is not a big
> problem to reduce all these polygon drawings to a node before i use the
> data.  But i would not want to map or do data maintainance in an area
> with such drawings.  I see this as a problem of pollution control.  Not
> to litter the environment, not to pollute the air just because it is
> convenient.
> > Also, sorry, I cannot see how representing a strait the size and
> > importance of the Shelikof Strait (every Alaskan knows about this
> > famous water passage) with a single way could work. A way is totally
> > inadequate for such a task. Maybe that trick would work for a narrow
> > strait that resembles a fjord but not for one as large as this one.
> Yes, i completely understand how this seems this way but i also know
> that this is due to you not realizing how fairly easily you can
> computationally assess the shape and the size of the street from a
> single properly placed node.  I will keep this case in mind for the
> future as a good example to illustrate that.
> Note the current node:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5999961722
> is of course not suitably placed.  Correct position would be around
> here:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=57.9877&mlon=-154.0407#map=9/57.9877/-154.0407
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181116/758ececd/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list