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

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 8:01 AM Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:


> 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.
>

The current data model works just fine for fuzzy areas: it requires a
polygon combined with tagging that indicates that the area is "fuzzy".
Since the current data model allows both polygons and tags, fuzzy areas
could be mapped just fine from a technical standpoint.

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.
>

"Whether we want fuzzy areas" and "how they can be established" is
certainly an open question that requires additional intellectual thought
and consensus-building to achieve.  However, the statement that they
"cannot" be established in our database is simply an opinion, not a
technical barrier.


> 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.
>

There are lots of things mapped in OSM that I don't care about.  For
example, I don't care about building outlines.  However, there are lots of
people that do care about building outlines and so they get mapped.  The
fact that I don't care about building outlines is not a good argument for
preventing others from mapping building outlines.  Likewise, the fact that
some don't care about fuzzy areas is an irrelevant argument to those that
wish to have them.

The statement that fuzzy polygons is "damaging" is an argument not based in
fact.  It is not damaging to me to have building outlines, which I do not
care about.  I can simply ignore them.  Likewise, fuzzy areas cause no
damage to people that do not care about fuzzy areas, provided that there is
tagging that distinguishes them from non-fuzzy areas.


> 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.


Since "fuzzy areas" are allegedly harmful to the database and data model,
will the DWG be taking swift and immediate action to delete the 49 objects
currently harming the database by the use of the "fuzzy" key?

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=fuzzy

Further, since we have free tagging, there is nothing preventing mappers
(especially ones not party to these conversations) from adding additional
fuzzy areas to the database, mapped with some invented scheme, and
potentially even creating data consumers to consume such invented tagging.
Many tagging schemes in OSM have arisen in this manner.

I think we need to know whether these comments represent the opinion of the
DWG, and whether the DWG is signaling to the community that they will be
taking a heavy-handed approach against mappers that invent schemes for or
create fuzzy areas through the principle of free tagging.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201221/e26abeef/attachment-0001.htm>