[Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

[Marc Gemis]

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 5:27 PM Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 06 February 2020, Marc Gemis wrote:


>
> > And I want to end with a quote from {1]
> >
> > "My approach to this matter has been – from the beginning of my
> > contributions to OSM-Carto – to regard the role and task of the
> > project as mapper support without active steering."
> >
> > My feeling is that in this case that principle has been broken (I am
> > not going to repeat the arguments given here by the others in this
> > thread)
>
> Your feeling is wrong, possibly due to you misunderstanding the concept
> of mapper support.  Mapper support does not mean doing what the loudest
> mappers want you to do.  There are tons of nonsensical or
> non-verifiable tags loudly promoted by mappers.  Rendering such in
> OSM-Carto would not be mapper support, it would be sabotage.  Mapper
> support in style design primarily means - as i like to phrase it -
> supporting mappers in consistent use of tags.
>
> The irony here is that - as i mentioned in another mail - OSM-Carto is
> to a significant extent responsible for encouraging mappers to use this
> ambiguous tagging and we now get criticized for trying to fix this
> counterproductive incentive.

I still do not understand why area=yes is a bad tag. So far, the only
argument I have seen is that you have problems to implement it in your
workflow. Someone Else had to problem to implement it.

Area=yes is imho usefull for features that can be closed ways and
areas, such as hedges and a few other  barrier tags that were
mentioned in this thread. It makes no sense for
landcover/landuse/natural/leisure/amenity, which, AFAIK, cannot be
closed ways, but are always areas when represented by a closed
polygon.

So when area=yes is used in combination with barrier I expect the
polygon to be filled. The other people tat to the time to respond to
your question on what does the following mean to you, had the same
opinion.

So when barrier=hedge, landuse/amenity/leisure/natural/landcover and
area=yes are placed on the same closed way or multipolygon, the only
interpretation is that the hedge fills the area. This is probably
wrong, but it should still be rendered as such.

Even if there are a few 10k-100k of such instances, they can easily be
fixed with a Maproulette challenge..
This has been done before when the landuse=farm stopped rendering or
during the multi-polygon cleanup. Although the numbers might be of a
different order.

If OS carto-team would have chosen this route, the fix would have been
straightforward, though time-consuming. WIth your solution, people are
forced to come up with new tagging proposals for each of the barrier
types, go through the approval process and then start the retagging.

I have little hope that you will revert the change and take a
different approach. Given earlier discussions on landcover, I feel
that people trying to properly map green areas are left in the cold.
The approach seems to be take: one of the features that colours green,
then you are fine, do not bother about the details.

regards

m