[Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

[Anders Torger]

To make a specific answer to "what additional verifiable local 
knowledge" this relation is intended to cover, is that the wetland is a 
single named entity, not multiple entities named the same.

And here's some elaboration. This is 4 km wide wetland, in the real 
world named as a single entity, but it does consist of both bog and 
marsh, in the screenshot named each separate part as you suggested:

https://www.torger.se/anders/downloads/Screenshot_2020-12-13-OpenStreetMap.png

"Verifiable" is tricky in terms of names of natural features as we all 
know, as many of those haven't defined borders. Wetlands maybe so, but 
even in this case, are the small satellite wetlands part of Rijmmoàhpe 
or not? Noone knows, it was never defined. That's the way these names 
work. Does that mean that these type of names should not be in OSM at 
all? You tell me. I just try to contribute geodata to make maps for 
outdoor use. If OSM is not the platform, let me know.

I'm not particularly experienced in how OSM use relations and why the 
are so "obnoxious" as Mateusz put it, but I have worked with arranging 
data in many projects and to me this is an obvious case of data that 
should be arranged as a container with all its parts. I also think that 
it would make it much easier to fix the renderer, it can easily get all 
parts for the single name, and as a added bonus get to know the "master 
type" (instead of having to go through all parts calculate the area to 
figure out which nature that is dominant to get the tag styling right). 
Etc.

I didn't add it thinking about any renderer though, it was actually for 
myself to more easily keep track of all parts when editing on JOSM. With 
a parent relation I just need to click on one, and then on the parent 
relation to get all selected. Otherwise I need to create a filter on the 
name or something, so to me it's also more efficient for the mapper.

And in the end I think that the individual parts should not have name 
tags at all, it should only be on the parent relation. The reason we put 
it on the individual parts now is to me obviously just because there is 
no renderer support available anywhere for naming these type of natural 
entities, and probably will stay that way for the foreseeable future.

Having a relation on these new features makes them easy to find in the 
database and one can upgrade the tags later. I suppose it's much more 
complicated to make a filter to find parts named the same with shared 
borders, I don't really know how to do it in JOSM (but maybe one can?).

So that's my reasons, but if you think they're bad I'll remove the 
relation. I would like to hear how you want to solve the problem instead 
though. As you see on the screenshot, the current situation is far from 
optimal with lots of tiny name tags where there should be only one.

/Anders

On 2020-12-14 13:28, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>> Anders Torger <anders at torger.se> hat am 14.12.2020 07:59 geschrieben:
>> 
>> 
>> I'll gladly answer questions, but I think you need to rephrase. I
>> suppose it is some hidden critique in there, but I honestly do not
>> understand the question. It would be better for me if you put words on
>> the critique instead of wrapping it in a question.
> 
> There is no critique in there, i have not formed an opinion on the
> concept, i like to understand the reasoning behind this.  Hence the
> question.
> 
> The premise is that in OSM we record verifiable local knowledge about
> the geography of the world.  And we try to record that in a form that
> is most efficient for the mapper.  Hence the question what additional
> verifiable knowledge you intend to record with the additional data
> structures you propose to create that is not yet in what we already
> record today.
> 
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> https://www.imagico.de/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging