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

Florian Kratochwil florian at kratochwil.at
Tue Dec 22 11:09:24 UTC 2020


I've been reading with great interest in Anders' E-Mails and the 
resulting discussions about naming nature. It is a topic i wish OSM 
improves on.

I have two points:

1) I don't know what everybody means with "fuzzy" and without that its 
impossible to discuss it.
2) I think, in most cases there you can just map the things with 
existing tags as areas. Many names will be rendered by some renderers. 
Maybe, Anders, you need one or two new tags, because you find nothing to 
fit --> Just create a new tag and show us the object.


See this examples:

Example 1: I wanted to name a part of a forest. I mapped a 
landuse=forest in a landuse=forest:
Big one (Already existed, Wienerwald): 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4625
Small one (Tulbinger Forst): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11179559
The border of the smaller one is not 100% clear, there are no maps or 
signs showing the extent, but some borders (streets, streams) are clear. 
Maybe sometime someone changes it, because he thinks, "Tulbinger Forst" 
is bigger or smaller. I dont think it will result in a big edit war.
I get a warning in JOSM for two overlapping landuses of the same kind.
--> Is this a fuzzy line? I think no

Example 2: A (natural) plain. I drew the polygon line along the edge as 
it can be seen in the Austrian laser scan.
(Eferdinger Becken) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/831292001
--> Is this a fuzzy line? I'm not sure. There are plains out there with 
less significant edges where lines would be fuzzier.
The humanitarian style renders the name (small in the center): 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/831292001#map=12/48.2840/14.0992&layers=H

Example 3: regions. In Lower Austria, there are two regions, which 
together have a well defined outside border (Rivers and administrative 
borders), but the border between themselves is not that clear (but could 
be mapped in more detail with more geological knowledge).
Weinviertel: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11317717
Waldviertel: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11319139
--> For me, there is one part fuzzy, the rest ist not: It is this line: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827580755
For me, the information if a village or any other object is in the 
Weinviertel is something OSM *must* know. Or if someone searches for 
"Weinviertel", because he doesnt know it, he must get an answer. 
Everyone living around here knows and uses those names.
I don't see any problem in mapping it like this.
Opentopomap renders them nicely: 
https://opentopomap.org/#map=9/48.6420/16.1554

Example 4: Mateusz' example: polish mezoregions: 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/11pc
Is this fuzzy? I think yes. But I wouldnt call this "a mess". I dont 
know what those regions are and how it is verifiable, but from the 
geometry it looks consistently mapped. Do those lines hurt anybody? I 
think, if the place=region had established subtags, this could be mapped 
better and help renderers and data users to handle them better.

Oh, I just see that in July 2020 someone wrote in the english 
place=region wiki 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dregion) that the tag is 
discouraged. Thats a pity. Of course not all region boundaries are 
administrative. Was it discussed here (I didnt find it)?

My conclusions:
I see no problem when everybody maps as precise as possible, which 
includes so fuzzy things.
If we have few edit wars as the price for lots of new name labels 
boosting outdoor maps, thats a price I
m willing to pay.
Most of the fuzzy objects are somewhere rendered (and opentopomap does 
is best).

Best Florian


Am 22.12.20 um 11:28 schrieb 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201222/5a47c41b/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list