[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Daniel Koć daniel at xn--ko-wla.pl
Wed Nov 28 18:45:49 UTC 2018


W dniu 28.11.2018 o 17:23, Doug Hembry pisze:

> The point is taken about the workload and lack of coders. It has
> always amazed me that the team manages to produce a robust, attractive
> and coherent map from the disparate tagging styles and sometime
> slightly weird practices that can be found in the database (I'd love
> to help but I think my coding years are behind me).


This is complex process and don't worry - coding is typically not the
hardest part of it. Analysing the meaning of tagging schemes, and how
they are used, is a common part of preparing rendering. Also finding
clear design, which is not in conflict with something we already show,
can be difficult.

Trying to be back on topic: this thread is good illustration of such
process. It looks like the code for boundary=protected_area (restricted
only to natural resources) was a reason to prepare similar code for both
boundary=aboriginal_lands and boundary=protected_area +
protect_class=24. That would be easy to just merge, but we were not sure
how they relate to each other, and one of them was not even documented.
Now we are trying to figure out the proper tagging on this list and at
the same time we're also trying to get the proper rendering, since
proposed rendering is similar to some other (namely zoo) and we render
so many objects, that it's hard to find something distinct and clear.

So, we have both tagging scheme and rendering problems here and we need
some decisions, even if the actual code is already there.


> I'm sorry if my slightly hysterical posts were over the top. No
> offense intended. Perhaps I should see someone about my paranoid
> tendencies:-) I also realize that these kinds of mailing list
> discussions are a distraction from the real work. Sorry!


No offence taken. :-) I try to make people aware how tagging and
rendering (I know just OSM Carto style) are related to each other and
this was a good opportunity to speak out. OSM is so big ecosystem, that
it's quite common that different projects do not even communicate, which
is really bad for the whole community.


> PS: (I can't resist....) If you guys wanted to burnish your already
> hero status in 2019, it would be really helpful to have the
> boundary=protected_area rendering differentiate "closed" areas (based
> on the access tag) as is done for roads today. A simple dashed
> rendering would probably suffice. But maybe I should wait for the
> forthcoming change first, and then teach myself how to raise an issue
> on github in the approved manner.


This is one of the ideas to discuss on OSM Carto issue tracker. Please
join and you will see how designing process really works. The only
trivial changes are typos, most of the other propositions need some time
and discussion.


-- 
"Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]





More information about the Tagging mailing list