[Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

[Anders Torger]

Steve,

I'm sorry if you experience it as that. Maybe I'm a bit too 
confrontational, and maybe I should express myself with a softer tone, I 
guess my style has become a bit shaped by to how we communicate engineer 
to engineer in programming projects. That is the jargon can be quite 
"hard" with many strong opinions clashing, but it's nothing personal. 
I've seen others in this list use the same "tough" way to voice their 
opinions so I thought it was okay. As long as one focus on the merits of 
the arguments, have an open mind to change opinion, is open to solutions 
one didn't think about, and don't go personal it usually works well.

I can try go softer in jargon, but it won't change the fact that the 
reason I get on this list is when things either don't work or I don't 
find an answer to some question. So it will be "complaints" in some way 
or another. I think I do provide some solutions too though, although 
some may not be easy to realize or is not likable by everyone.

That there are many "complaints" coming from me now is because I 
currently map *a lot* and mainly nature (which wasn't an original goal 
for OSM but something that has come later, so it's understandable that 
there are issues) and therefore come across many issues which have no 
clear answers. This is a list for tag discussion, strategy and related 
tools. Issues bubble up to here. If I had a clear answer I wouldn't even 
need to post, and there are many of those too (ie where I've found 
working solutions on the wiki or through OSM help). The reason I don't 
have a clear answer is that there is several issues with the current 
approaches, which I described in my post.

If OSM intends to be for all globally, there is a need to consider local 
needs and respect local knowledge, not only consider a feature relevant 
if it is has global spread. Maybe these natural=fell issues are specific 
to Scandinavia (although I think Great Britian has similar), but they 
are real here.

I try to make a case that it would be wise to render natural=fell, and 
describe why. There's a closed issue report on OSM-Carto github about 
this (yes I actually do some research before I post), and my arguments 
were shaped by that thread, to proactively meet what came up there so we 
don't need to have exactly the same discussion all over again.

However, that I have a suggested solution doesn't mean that I'm open to 
other suggestions, maybe an alpine tag for indicating nature above tree 
line for example. I think it's however very difficult and not worthwhile 
to go very specific for our fell habitat, which I also described in the 
original post.

Heath below the tree line is quite easy to identify, as it's surrounded 
by forest. Heath above the tree line is pretty chaotic, speckled with 
bare rock and scree. Hence a generic tag "fell" would suit perfectly 
well, and is already in existence, but it needs rendering in OSM-Carto 
to show mappers that there is backing for this tag.

/Anders

On 2020-12-21 10:12, stevea wrote:
> 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.