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

[Florimond Berthoux]

Hi,

To answer your question : yes, we can have them and we already have them.

But actually you don't have to ask permission to map, any feature you like
and any tag you like.

So, you could tag like (just an idea) :
area=yes
area:fuzzy=yes
area:precision=100m (":precision" could be a sub tag for every tag, like
width, height, ...).

After reading much of the thread, I didn't find any serious issue about
having fuzzy areas.
Just tag, and people will see if it works or not.

Regards.

Le lun. 21 déc. 2020 à 10:22, Anders Torger <anders at torger.se> a écrit :

> Next question.
>
> 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?
>
> Plateau, peninsula etc are naturally mapped like an additional low
> detail fuzzy area polygon on top of other land covers. My opinion has
> been made clear in other threads: I think fuzzy areas on top is an
> elegant solution for naming nature and something we should have. I think
> the cluttering issue can be solved with filters, but as these will be
> used in low numbers to start with I think cluttering will not be an
> issue for some time to come so it's something we could look into later.
> In any case that's a tool issue, not a database issue.
>
> If we don't want fuzzy areas, an other alternative is to have these as
> named points, (previously often made as "place=locality"). I think that
> is okay too, but then we need size classification on them like we have
> on residental isolated dwelling/hamlet/village etc so the renderer have
> enough information to know how large to make texts and which zoom level
> to show them. Having the same level for all names doesn't work.
>
> Fuzzy areas has the advantage of solving the text size automatically
> (not a mapper decision), and gives freedom to the renderer to place (and
> even shape) the text. Fuzzy areas also scale well up to huge sizes (like
> the Sahara desert) if we want that as well, which point text doesn't in
> the same way. We could decide to have fuzzy areas over a certain size in
> an external database too. I'm not super-stoked over the external
> database method though, as I think then it risks becoming like
> elevation/contours is today, ie not generally available and with varied
> quality.
>
> A disadvantage is that fuzzy areas have limits in verifiability and it
> arguably requires more knowledge/judgment from the mapper than roughly
> placing a point. On the other hand, optimal point placement also have
> cartography and verifiability issues. The underlaying issue here is of
> course that these type of names have never have defined borders and
> never will, but I think we cannot continue to pretend that they aren't
> relevant for a database mainly used to generate maps. We need to
> represent them in some way.
>
> A third alternative is not having names of this type at all. While I
> just said that it's not the way to go, if someone still has that as a
> clear opinion please make that clear rather than just point at
> disadvantages of every suggested solution without coming up with an
> alternative. We know there are disadvantages and no solution is 100%
> perfect, but sometimes there's a higher goal to fulfill.
>
> The fourth and current alternative is leaving the question undecided,
> with some fuzzy areas active (bays and straits), some not rendered
> (peninsula), and passively see how it plays out in the coming years (or
> decades!). It's the simplest alternative, but as a mapper and OSM end
> user I hope we can make some real progress now.
>
> Worth mentioning is also the alternative to make a fuzzy cutout of the
> dominant landcover and name that. I've done quite some forest naming
> that way. However it's quite complicated and time-consuming to make
> these cutouts (complex multipolygon editing), and it only works well
> when the name is actually tied to the landcover as such, eg the name is
> on the forest, not a forest-covered peninsula or plateau. While I think
> it's okay to mix this cutout naming method when it works, and use fuzzy
> areas on top when that is required, I also think a viable option would
> be to name forests with fuzzy areas on top as well, but then we need a
> specific tag (or tag combination) so the renderer knows that it
> shouldn't make landcover rendering for that.
>
> I'd like to at least know where we are headed. I could use a tag which
> is not yet rendered, but it would be nice to know if the information
> will potentially ever be used, or if I'm maybe just wasting my time...
>
> /Anders
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Florimond Berthoux
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201226/3952f952/attachment.htm>