[OSM-talk-be] ardenne - way 890280505

Thu Jul 8 16:06:41 UTC 2021

The polygon is poorly defined. Not good enough to stay there IMO. But it can be improved.

A much more precise delimitation of the Ardennes can be found on “Le géoportail de Wallonie” AKA WalOnMap at https://geoportail.wallonie.be/walonmap

To see the Ardennes border, you have to select on the left “Catalogue du Géoportail” and search for “Carte bioclimatique de Wallonie (BIOCLIM)”. It will be displayed on a layer in high definition. To see the legend, click on the gear icon and then click “Légende”. You’ll see 3 Ardennes areas: 

1.	“Basse et Moyenne Ardenne” shown in light green
2.	« Ardenne centro-orientale » shown in medium green
3.	“Haute Ardenne” shown in dark green

You can zoom in to see the definition which is excellent.

--

François

De : Wouter Hamelinck <wouter.hamelinck at gmail.com> 
Envoyé : jeudi 8 juillet 2021 17:23
À : OpenStreetMap Belgium <talk-be at openstreetmap.org>
Objet : Re: [OSM-talk-be] ardenne - way 890280505

I'll take the opposite view and say that the Ardennes have their place in OSM. The exist on the ground, cover a more or less well defined area which is visible on the ground (elevation, forest cover, geology...). The existance of the tag natural=mountain_range shows that this kind of geographical features have their place in OSM. That their is no clear administrative border is not an argument. For most of the natural features that is the case and often one might argue a bit where best to put the border.

For me the polygon has its place in OSM.

I do agree that natural=mountain_range is not correct because the Ardennes are not a mountain range, but a plateau.

The polygon as it is at the moment is also too large, covering also the Calestienne and extending in what is Fagne-Famenne (for instance Marche-en-Famenne is obviously in Famenne and not in the Ardennes), but that has nothing to do with the question whether or not the polygon should be in OSM.

Wouter

On Thu, 8 Jul 2021, 15:37 Pierre Parmentier, <pierrecparmentier at gmail.com <mailto:pierrecparmentier at gmail.com> > wrote:

Hello,

I was recently intrigued by this way <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/890280505#map=8/50.022/6.059>  whose name is Ardenne/Ardennes/Ardennen. I think that this type of data has no place in OpenStreetMap today.

Why not? First some references ...

*	(https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardenne)
*	(https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardenne#Communes) Including a list of communes located in Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and France].
*	(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dmountain_range) 
*	(https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cha%C3%AEne_de_montagnes) 
*	(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountain_ranges#Europe) It does not appear that the Ardennes is considered a mountain range.
*	In Denis, Jacques. Geography of Belgium. Brussels: Crédit communal de Belgique, 1992 there is a map (p. 137) that shows the major morphological units of Belgium. The Northern Ardennes, the Central Ardennes and the Southern Ardennes are among 19 other units.

It is clear from all this that the Ardenne is a geological concept. The data does not belong to OpenStreetMap at this stage. Tags relating to geology are few in number and generally very precisely located. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:geological). This is not the case with the way 890280505.

OK, there are several types of boundaries in OSM. But these are - generally - official and public data which are not contestable. The boundaries of the Ardennes are too imprecise and hardly verifiable in the field by an ordinary contributor. Who will arbitrate on possible boundary changes?

The route created by Florimondable may be well-intentioned. But it seems to me to be unmanageable in OSM.

But that's just my point of view.

I contacted both the first (Florimondable) and the last (Stereo) publisher.

I asked Florimondable the reason of this way. He answered 'J’ai ajouté le massif montagneux des Ardennes parce qu’il… existe. Pour sa géométrie je ne suis pas du tout un spécialiste de ce massif, j’ai donc fait au mieux de mes connaissances.' [I added the Ardennes mountain range because it... exists. For its geometry I am not at all a specialist of this massif, so I did the best of my knowledge]. 

For Stereo 'Si Florimondable n’a pas vraiment l’utilité du polygone, pas d’objection à ce qu’il disparaisse. Je ne connais malheureusement pas de rendu qui utilise ce genre de trucs.' [If Florimondable doesn't really have a use for the polygon, no objection to it disappearing. Unfortunately I don't know of any rendering that uses this kind of stuff.].

What do you think of this? Should we keep these types of data in OSM? The French and the German mappers should be involved.

Pierre aka foxandpotatoes

_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-be at openstreetmap.org> 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20210708/f2cbe04c/attachment.htm>