[Tagging] Using multipolygons to map bays in Alaska

Christoph Hormann osm at imagico.de
Sat Nov 17 12:18:33 UTC 2018


On Saturday 17 November 2018, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> I do agree that while we should not "map for the renderer" it is good
> to have a central map that provides valuable feedback, and keeps
> mappers from, say, introducing random highway types by simply not
> rendering them. But I felt in this situation, they had overstepped
> their mandate, *especially* because they were not reacting to
> something that people were doing, but actively creating a new feature
> ("hey, you can now have huge named bays") and at the same time adding
> the data to OSM to illustrate their new feature.

Indeed.

And to make this very clear once again - no one suggested so far to 
universally disallow mapping bays using polygons.

What has been said is that mapping bays with a node is the most common, 
most widely accepted and (in my opinion) in the vast majority of cases 
the most suitable way of mapping bays, in particular larger ones.  And 
OSM-Carto should support mappers in this practice and not steer them to 
change it.

OSM-Carto has historically for as long as i can remember supported nodes 
and polygons equally for features where both variants are commonly 
accepted methods to map something - housenumbers is the most prominent 
example probably - which can be mapped both on an address node or on a 
building and are shown in both cases with no preference for either of 
them.  The same is perfectly appropriate to do for bays.  What however 
is not appropriate is to incentivize mapping bays with polygons by 
labeling them from polygons in a different form that in particular for 
large bays is more suitable and attractive than when mapped with nodes.  
Or like for straits to label them when mapped with polygons but not 
show them at all when mapped with a linear way.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/



More information about the Tagging mailing list