[Tagging] The showstoppers for mapping Scandinavian nature.

[stevea]

On Dec 26, 2020, at 2:24 AM, Anders Torger <anders at torger.se> wrote:
> Unfortunately it turns out that it's impossible to fill these gaps, and thus impossible to fulfill the goal I had. OSM-based maps will never be able to replace our traditional maps, which in practice means that when I use an OSM-based map I will still need to have an extra app on the side with the real map to get complete coverage. That kills my personal motivation to map Scandinavian nature with any sort of detail, as it then just becomes a theoretical exercise with no practical end goal.

After dumping on our project in multiple ways and multiple times, now Anders implies OSM isn't "a real map" as he waves goodbye to his dreams of how he wishes to see renderings.  Wow.  Simply because it doesn't suit his purposes, he damns the entirety of OSM as "not a real map."  We see this clearly, Anders.

> There are two show-stoppers that makes this impossible. Neither is technical.

Impossibility is in the eye of the beholder.  By Anders saying this, I am reminded of American "founding father" Benjamin Franklin's story in his autobiography that ends "methinks I like a speckled axe best."  The story is that when a man with a rusty axe wants it all polished up and shiny, as he finds that tremendous effort only begins to yield the pretty, useful tool he wishes, the axe becomes only "speckled" on its way to becoming fully polished.  Daunted by the amount of work involved to achieve his dreams of a fully polished, well-oiled tool, ready to use, the man gives up, settling for "only" a "speckled axe."

> One is that as OSM is only interested in providing a geo database it makes it very hard to discuss geo services, such as maps. Limitations in data representation that cause limitations in what geo services you can implement are considered as non-issues as OSM doesn't prioritize any of these services itself, and thus it's next to impossible to make any kind of progress in these areas.

"Hard to discuss" is Anders-speak for "I can't come into this list insulting, bullying and demanding that people make for me what I want to solve my problems...so I'll disingenuously say it's 'hard' to discuss how to achieve my results."  No, Anders, plenty of people come to this list with questions, problems, a search for technical solutions, an ask about better strategies to achieve a certain result with OSM data... and these people are able to find thoughtful, helpful people here who (more times than not), achieve together good, forward progress in the topics discussed.  Despite many efforts on my part to guide you towards better methods (of dialog, of attitude...) to achieve what you wish, apparently you are giving up, assigning blame not where it belongs (squarely upon your shoulders to persevere with civil dialog and within the tenets of good collaboration within this list and project), but instead blaming the "limitations" of the project itself.  While OSM certainly has limitations, I go on record here to say OSM's limitations were not why you were unable to fulfill your goal.  Hitting the brick wall you did (and subsequently quitting) is fully on you, not because "OSM can't progress."

Many here extended patience with you and engaged in good faith with you several times.  I now say Thank You to you for bringing to our attention difficulties, limitations, or confusing aspects of how we "name nature" (among other topics).  I expect that further discussion, consideration on how to solve some of the perplexing problems you brought up and more (perhaps even better rendering someday, though I wouldn't hold my breath for that, as it isn't why OSM is what it is) will continue to take place even as you leave behind your efforts.  There ARE better ways to do what you are asking which do not include your behavior (which I've already pointed out and don't wish to repeat).  The efforts to make the sort of improvements you wish will include those better ways and deliberately exclude your style of behavior.  This is OSM making the best of a sad situation, which is what we will do.  I'd like to put the animosity in our rear-view mirror.

> The other more concrete showstopper is the purist interpretation of the verifiability principle which makes it impossible to name nature in a way that that can be rendered properly on a map. Confusingly enough, some of this functionality has slipped in and is used in practice (bays and straits), but turns out that's due to an individual developer going against other developers' will, thus if it wouldn't for a glitch in the development process it wouldn't be in.

This is yet another red herring (appears to be reasonable, but is actually misleading or distracting).  This is not a "showstopper" for OSM, though it appears to be one for Anders.  I am optimistic that more clarity regarding verifiability can and will emerge in OSM, as it does seem to be a "fog on our lens" sometimes, preventing us from seeing things as many agree they "really are" (named and described by humans) in nature.  Yes, this clarity might take months or even years (topics can be difficult to describe and potential solutions offered can be quite wide-ranging, such as introducing "fuzzy"), yet the project has the sort of patience to do that, even if Anders does not.

> In Scandinavian rural nature we have about 5 - 10 of these names with "undefined" borders per 10x10 km square, so it's more than a few. Named sections of forests, named sections of water, named sections of a mountain or hill, named sections of broad ridges, named peninsulas, named valleys (often extremely wide), named plateaus, long streams which in some undefined place change name, huge wetlands which in some undefined place change name, etc.

I appreciate that you better shape and scope your understanding of what you say OSM is now unable to accommodate for you, as it helps us as we go forward to "solve" these issues.  While you might be a first or early identifier of these, you won't be the last, as I expect that others here will continue to "stroke our chins" (ponder, think, consider solutions, discuss among ourselves...) in the interests of better map data.  Thank you for your contributions.

> According to the purist interpretation of verifiability all these should be named as points of undefined size, or maybe in some cases as a line. (Actually you could make a polygon of these natural areas verifiable in the purist way, just by making it small enough so that all points of the polygon is verifiably inside the area, but it's not up for discussion)

You are mistaken:  this and more is indeed "up for discussion," as it remains an open topic to explore solutions.

> Point-naming nature in Scandinavia is only useful for very small natural areas, say up to 500 meters span. As soon as the natural area spans more than that a point without size information is not sufficient for any data consumer can represent it properly in relation to the small areas. With this type of data in the database it's impossible to render a map with names in nature properly so you are better off leaving them out alltogether.

Consideration of data consumers is a secondary to OSM's primary consideration to enter verifiable data.  And again, saying something is impossible (as it exists in the eye of the beholder) is often a challenge for somebody to prove that impossibility wrong, by actually making it possible.  (At least in OSM, I've seen this happen many times!)

> And that is what mappers have done in Scandinavia most of the time so far, and also what I will do. Mapping nature with high detail but leaving out names does not feel meaningful to me (as it still just means that one will have to use a traditional map on the side), so I will personally just stop doing landcovers alltogether.

OK:  goodbye to your efforts.  I'm OK (as I believe many here are) with "not mapping" where it isn't clear how to do so.

> I will of course keep an eye on OSM and how it develops in the future, so if its strategy evolves in a way that makes mapping of these natural features meaningful I'll get back to work. Until then, I'll only map the things that OSM can do in well-defined ways.

That's sensible.  If you wish to join in present or future continuing discussions of how this might take place, I ask you to be civil, non-confrontational, judgement-free and that any criticism you might offer be purely constructive.  You have earned a reputation here as an ineffective source of deep negativity.  To change that will take a great deal of effort on your part to the contrary.  I wish you luck in your future efforts and endeavors.

> I'll unsubscribe from the list now as I won't need to ask any questions when mapping basic stuff, so if you need to reach me send an email directly to me.

I post this to the list, I cc your email.

SteveA