[Talk-ca] Bodies of seawater in Canada - area definitions

[stevea]

On Oct 20, 2021, at 2:04 AM, David Nelson via Talk-ca <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> I recently posted a diary entry detailing my intent to put into OSM area definitions, implemented as multipolygon relations, for all named bodies of seawater in Canada, and I was just informed that there was a consensus in place that this should not be done, owing to the possibility that such a data set would be unmaintainable.  I have already done this for the entire British Columbia coast, and having experienced few but easily solvable problems thus far, have now been working on the Atlantic coast of Canada, starting in the Bay of Fundy and progressing almost to Halifax as of now.  I would really like to continue with this project, and I am hoping I could find some support to that effect.  I am willing to maintain this data subset on my own, using other tools made available to editors, such as OSM Inspector.  Plus, the validator in JOSM recommends that bodies of water be defined as areas and not as points.  I of course would not attempt to put in a relation for, say, the Atlantic Ocean, as such a relation would require what I see as way too many member ways.

I have mixed feelings about discouraging any OSM Contributor from making ongoing contributions for the “possibility” that these would become unmaintainable.  On the one hand, we have no “law” (or even tenet) that any data contributed be “maintained,” although it certainly is appreciated when a theme or distinct import are kept up-to-date.  So I’m all for “if the data are carefully (lovingly?!) curated in OSM (and not an Import, which have community-consensus Guidelines), these are welcome.  On the other hand, if a specific data type (like ways vs. relations) and / or some specific regional or local tagging preferences have become firmly established, though should be respected.

One objection might be that relations are more difficult for novice mappers to understand, and therefore help to maintain.  But relations are certainly valid and hence are welcome.  Distinctions about “nodes vs. ways” or “ways vs. relations” for specific geographic features should be respected, too, but I’d call these more guidelines that can be bent, rather than hard-and-fast rules that are so brittle they break.  And, it seems you have the cartographic acumen to “easily solve problems” and I find that perfectly acceptable in OSM.  Documenting progress in a comprehensive wiki, while ambitious, couldn’t hurt.  (I speak from experience and put my typing fingers where my mouth and mapping are, in USA Rail and bicycle routes on a nationwide scale, for instance).

Can you bring to light some of the objections you are hearing?  It seems it may be over-cautious, especially if the “consensus in place” is not well specified, that seems a bit of a yellow flag.  This could get sticky or even “political” (in an OSM consensus-building context), but we’re (literally) “just talking” here and now.

SteveA