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

[Anders Torger]

We should probably not have all these possible generalized areas in our 
db. Just as we probably shouldn't have a bedrock map in the db either, 
at least not until it can manage layers.

But we could simply pick one criteria, document the definition of the 
"fuzzy area" and have that. Some criteria that is useful as a basis for 
making general-purpose maps. I don't think it's a problem to have fuzzy 
areas in the database as long as they can be identified as such and 
there is a clear definition of what they mean and what the concept of 
fuzziness is. Renderers shouldn't generally not render the border of 
these areas, and if they do for some particular illustration (to show 
where Black Forest is for example) they should make them really blurry 
and fuzzy. Sure one can always come up with arguments regarding 
verifiability, but in general I think they are quite weak. If we want 
this feature we can have it. If we don't want it, we can make up 
arguments against it.

Often I see in discussions on this list that people not really say if 
they actually want a feature or not. They just put forward criticism on 
a certain implementation, without ever clarifying their standpoint on 
the feature as such. It does not apply to you Martin of course (you have 
clearly shown you want this feature, we're just discussing method, which 
is great), I just want to mention that I think we should all strive to 
do that, clarify our standpoint for or against a feature rather than 
just covering under technical arguments, sometimes increasingly strained 
and formulaic.

Anyway, one can also argue that it is a problem from an editing 
standpoint to have these fuzzy areas overlay other areas increasing the 
clutter. While I think the argument has some merit, I think that is 
easily solved with a filter, already today supported in JOSM, and easily 
added to iD. As the areas are fuzzy it does not really matter if other 
natural polygons are edited and adjusted without adjusting the fuzzy 
area, they don't need (and probably shouldn't) share nodes with the 
underlying nature, so it's not a problem if they aren't visible at the 
same time per default.

Although I argue for having these in the main database, I'm not really 
against to having it in a different database, that would technically 
work as well. I just see it as unlikely to catch on. If we have it in a 
separate database we could do it even if the majority of the OSM 
community isn't on board with the concept at all. OSM-Carto wouldn't 
render it, and as a result I think a major part of the mappers wouldn't 
even know that it exists. Just like it's unreasonable to think that 
mappers would know about naming concepts that render incorrectly in 
OSM-Carto (the Rijmmoáhpe wetland example).

I also think that having concepts to name nature is important enough to 
serve the making of maps that it really should be in OSM main database. 
OSM can already name much of nature and mappers contribute to that, it 
just falls a bit short on these more complex cases. The concept of fuzzy 
areas has already been softly introduced with bays and straits. I see no 
reason why we shouldn't develop that capability further.

Another challenge with having it in a different database is that of 
management and availability. It's strange to suddenly need two databases 
to render just common general-purpose maps, and who's going to make sure 
that it's available? I think that using the current OSM infrastructure 
is a safer bet.

/Anders

On 2020-12-15 09:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 15. Dec 2020, at 06:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
> 
>> If I look at a map eg 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Forest#/media/File:Relief_Map_of_Germany,_Black_Forest.png, 
>> it tells me that the Balck Forest is a more or less oval-shaped area 
>> in Southern Germany. Why can't we draw a similar rough oval in OSM & 
>> call it Black Forest?
> 
> have a look at this overview:
> 
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturräumliche_Gliederung_des_Schwarzwaldes#Grobe_Gliederung
> 
> these areas are not directly observable on the ground, yes, they are 
> made (I suppose) by scientists according to certain criteria, but you 
> will probably get different answers if you asked a biologist, a 
> geologist or a linguist. And according to the scale that they are 
> working in.
> 
> Shall we really aim at having all these possible generalized areas and 
> classifications as nested polygons in our db? Seems obvious that we 
> can't.
> 
> Cheers Martin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201215/0c12ef9e/attachment-0001.htm>