[Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Tod Fitch]

> On Oct 8, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Group relations have been proposed (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Group_Relation <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Group_Relation>) in the past. One has been used to group the Great Lakes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1124369 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1124369>
> 
> I'm tempted to use type=group relations to group the Bisby Lakes, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/198380582 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/198380582>, the Cedar Lakes (First, Second, Third and Fourth are all conflated in OSM) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3586769 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3586769>, the Essex Chain of Lakes https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3696734 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3696734>, the Fulton Chain of Lakes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/195478 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/195478>, and similar groupings, because the unimaginative names of the individual lakes are, to say the least, uninformative. If enough people use type=group, the renderers, Nominatim, and other data consumers will eventually catch up, I suppose.
> 
> Note that US Geologic Survey topo maps have historically indicated the chain names as well as the lake names, so the USGS cartographers have considered both names to be significant: https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=43.87654,-74.23618&z=14&b=t&o=r&n=0.25 <https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=43.87654,-74.23618&z=14&b=t&o=r&n=0.25> shows the Essex Chain and https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=43.7229,-74.90313&z=14&b=t&o=r&n=0.25 <https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=43.7229,-74.90313&z=14&b=t&o=r&n=0.25> shows the foot of the Fulton Chain, for instance.
> 
> I haven't tried to push this issue, because the rendering world is truly not ready for it.  One of these years I'm going to want to try my hand at implementing a renderer that incorporates some of the ideas of https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/88830694/labellingFramework.pdf <https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/88830694/labellingFramework.pdf> and http://geoinformatics.ntua.gr/courses/admcarto/lecture_notes/name_placement/bibliography/barrault_2001.pdf <http://geoinformatics.ntua.gr/courses/admcarto/lecture_notes/name_placement/bibliography/barrault_2001.pdf>  for labeling elongated areas and groups (such as archipelagoes, mountain ranges, broad rivers, and chains of lakes). Don't expect it any time soon. So many projects, so little time...
> 

I had not noticed the existence of the group relation before. Seems to me that it and the controversial site relation have some overlap. For the examples I can think of where I think the site relation works it seems like the group relation would also work. So, at present and lacking counter-examples, it seems to me that one of these two relations should go away. I do not have a strong opinion on which but note that to me “site” implies a relatively small area whilst “group” does not.

Cheers!



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181008/20e3173e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181008/20e3173e/attachment.sig>