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

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Mon Dec 21 18:30:06 UTC 2020




Dec 21, 2020, 16:42 by zelonewolf at gmail.com:

>
>
> 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.
>
Bigger problem is that with things like mountain ranges there are multiple differing opinions
about borders.

For example in case of https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beskid_Wyspowy multiple authors
give precise, unfuzzy borders (specific rivers or roads).

But different authors prefer different borders.

See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borders_of_the_oceans
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundaries_between_the_continents_of_Earth
for other kind of differences. Modelling this is not fitting well how OSM works.


>
>
>> 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.
>
I would not say cannot, but it is extremely poor fit to OSM data model and how
OSM operates.

> 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.
>
It is not so easy. Someone mapped several fuzzy areas in my regions and all of
them are extremely irritating while mapping.

Building outlines are not stretching for hundreds of kilometers and do
not appear in places where there is nothing at all and building outlines
are verifiable unlike mess like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1757627
and other from https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/11pc

Some day I will need to check whatever it is also one big copyright violation
(for now I just left questions at ancient changesets that added this mess).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201221/c6dd12fb/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list