[Tagging] Fuzzy areas again: should we have them or not?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 21.12.20 10:20, Anders Torger wrote:
> In the mountains we have an number of named plateaus. There is a tag
> proposal for natural=plateau, but just like with natural=peninsula and
> similar tags there is an underlying question that we really need an
> answer to first: should we have fuzzy areas or should we not?

I think I have laid out my point in
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-December/056823.html

Our current data model is not suitable for mapping fuzzy areas. We can
only do "precise". Also, as you correctly pointed out, or basic tenet of
verifiability doesn't work well with fuzzy data.

So the one questions is, do we want fuzzy areas, the other is, if we
want them, how can they be established - because in our current database
they cannot.

I think fuzzy areas make a lot of sense for cartography, but I strongly
object to people adding hand-wavy polygons to OSM for fuzzy areas.

> We know there are disadvantages and no solution is 100%
> perfect, but sometimes there's a higher goal to fulfill.

Having a nice lettering across the Alps is certainly not a "higher goal"
for OSM as a whole; forcing fuzzy polygons for that into OSM is
irrelevant for most and outright damaging for some use cases, and the
advantage it would have for the one single use case of map rendering
does not justify it.

Please stop trying to frame this as "cartographers have a right to abuse
the data model, and if someone doesn't want that, they need to present a
viable alternative". We've come very far in OSM without such abuse and I
don't see why it should suddenly be introduced.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"