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

[Anders Torger]

Thanks Kevin, point taken ;-)

To summarize. This is the way I interpret this situation:

OSM is a geodatabase, with a design that makes some geodata suitable for 
it, others less so. The overall design is not likely to change to accept 
more types of geodata, instead we would rely on extra data sources to 
generate maps which require data that is not suitable for OSM, such as 
elevation data for contour lines and possibly fuzzy areas for names.

If fuzzy areas fit into the current OSM database or not is something we 
in the community don't agree on. Some of us think it does, others don't. 
Some think they are useful to making maps, but still not suitable for 
OSM. Some think they are not really useful or at least not important for 
maps either, they haven't seen a need for them.

It's not only about generating maps, it's also about being able to ask 
the database if location X is located in the Red Sea / Sahara desert / 
other named but fuzzy area, or not and similar questions. If we want OSM 
to be able to cater such queries is really interesting and something 
that haven't been discussed much so far.

It's hard to make constructive discussions on solutions when there is no 
agreement on that there is a problem that needs solving. Here we are 
exactly in that situation, we have not really come to the point to agree 
on a problem to be able to discuss solutions.

My personal OSM-related interest for the time being is in map generation 
especially in rural and "uninhabited" areas, and making mainstream 
OSM-based maps better in those areas. OSM database is however both a 
superset and a subset of the data needed for generating these type of 
maps. While I personally desire that OSM database and its default 
renderer should be developed in a direction to "fill in the gaps" this 
is not a goal of OSM at large. I was naive in the beginning and thought 
that was the case or at least a desire shared by many in the community 
and that the type of map features I need would be seen as mainstream, 
but clearly it is not.

Instead the enduring view is that the type of mapping I look into is 
better suited for OSM combined with extra data sources on the side and a 
custom renderer. Although I rather would see OSM moving towards grasping 
over a larger feature set which includes more of what I believe to be 
quite central to classic cartography and "what should be in any map", I 
stand more alone on that desire than I thought I would. This does not 
mean that there is any specific hostility against cartography, but there 
seems to be quite different views on what features that are important 
and not in maps. In other words many aspects that I thought was 
obviously important is not considered that by many/most OSM 
contributors.

This fuzzy area thing touches exactly on such a subject and is therefore 
quite difficult to discuss.

I think though it's already quite safe to say that there is not enough 
interest to make this a mainstream feature of OSM. It's also safe to say 
that those small scale fuzzy areas already exist in OSM and is 
manifested in various ways, so there are clearly not just I that need 
them in mapping. But I have no idea how we could move from that state.

/Anders

On 2020-12-22 00:16, Kevin Kenny wrote:

> Anders has been a bit confrontational
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201222/92307656/attachment-0001.htm>