[Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

[stevea]

On Dec 20, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Anders Torger <anders at torger.se> wrote:
> I'm doing further mapping of Swedish national parks, now in the mountains, and I have noted that natural=fell (habitat over tree line) is not rendered.
> 
> Looking into why it seems that OSM-Carto implementors want more specific landcover tags to be used. I don't think that (somewhat randomly) requiring detailed landcover is a good design choice.

Can Anders write anything here without telling OSM that it is broken and we don't know what we are doing?

Anders, where did you study cartography or get an advanced degree in design?  Ignoring the question speaks volumes.

> I think it would be better to have a defined hierarchy from more generic to more specific tags so the map can evolve.

Thank you for your opinion.

> Taking the leap to high detail mapping directly makes covering the map very slow and sometimes inaccurate.

Maybe.  Again, only maybe.  If you don't like OSM, you are welcome to not use it.

> Fell in particular is in parts so heavily speckled with slightly different covers it's hard to even see on the satellite photo what it is.

Complain, complain, complain.

> You can have say 30% bare rock, 20% scree and 40% heath and 10% wetland in an area. So I guess I make that heath then as it's dominant? That would however be more misleading than actually setting a more generic tag like natural=fell. Forcing detailed mapping where this is very difficult to do is not a good idea.

Bleeeeeeeeeating, bleeeeeeeating to this list with little to no constructive bent to your complaints is not a good idea.

> When we get to even higher altitude the growth disappear and we have just bare rock and scree so it becomes easier. It can at times be quite hard to differ between bare rock or scree though (the resolution of the satellite photos in the mountains is often not that great).

I'm beyond thinking that this barrage of "my preferences are the best" is not that great:  I'm already there!

> We already have more-generic-to-more-specific landcovers in other areas, you can provide wood without specifying tree type for example, or wetland without specifying type of wetland. (Parenthesis: going from more generic to more specific by adding additional specifying tags is an elegant design, I think it's a bit unfortunate that that design is mixed with a flat tag structure as well, but that's the way it is...).

More than a bit unfortunate are posts by constant complainers.

> It seems like a very odd design choice to require more detailed mapping in alpine areas where this is rather difficult. If we look into how official maps do it in Sweden and Norway they don't have specific landcovers above the tree line, they have just "fell", and in addition significant wetlands, plus waters and streams of course.

It seems like a very odd choice to write to a list with little more than "you folks are wrong, why don't you simply do things the way that _I_ want them done?"  Even after we (I, others...) politely and patiently engage you, do you expect us to keep doing so when it appears you cannot write to this list with little more than a litany of complaints?

> Fell indicates where we have bare mountain (above treeline), which is the key information outdoor goers need

Says you.  Others might agree, others disagree, not everybody thinks like you.  OSM aims to be for all, not just you.

> plus waters and significant wetlands. Anyone that has been to these mountains know that once above the tree line the land cover is quite predictable, it's decided by altitude and steepness.

The reason humans make maps is because nature, the world around us, is always changing in some way and is absolutely NOT predictable.  Maps are an approximation of reality, not reality.  There is no such thing of value as "quite predictable."  The first time something happens that wasn't predicted, you'll learn the value of that.

> At the fell altitude contour lines is key information, not if it's a patch of heath or bare rock, which rather just makes a map harder to read without providing valuable information.

I'm pretty sure of one thing:  you are not hard to read.  I see your name in the From header and know that I'm about to read someone hostile to OSM who can't seem to make even constructive criticism.  It's all rock-throwing, here's what's wrong with you and why don't you do things my way?  (Without so much as a "please").

> So far I have tagged these areas with natural=fell. I'm thinking about adding bare_rock at high altitude (and scree only when clear and significant), but in the medium altitude where there is growth more detailed mapping becomes very difficult. Heath would be the most natural generic tag for that area, but then we loose the distinction that it's above the tree line, as there already is some heath areas below the tree line. Maybe adding an extra tag like "alpine=yes"? I suppose it won't render differently from normal heath on any renderer though so we still lose the rather significant tree line information in actual maps.
> 
> Suggestions are welcome.

And while it's not much, this might actually have a few drops of value able to be wrung from it.  So far.