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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi there,

On 10/20/21 11:04, David Nelson via Talk-ca 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,

I'm unsure if there is a consensus. You will note that *my* critical 
remarks in your diary were carefully worded to express *my* opinion.

Personally I think that drawing such water bodies is a hack for getting 
them shown on the map.

Tell me you're doing this for any other reason than having nice blue 
labels? Would you be doing this work if it would not result in visible 
names on the map? Probably not, right?

So the makers of the map style have a generic rule that will draw names 
of water bodies, with a prominence somewhat proportional to the size of 
the water body. They could also have decided to render labels based on 
points but they haven't; there's plenty discussion (and dispute) about 
that over on the openstreetmap-carto issue tracker.

So now, as a consequence of that decision, we have people draw large 
polygons (so that they get nice and prominent labels). These polygons 
definitely make editing easier - anyone who splits up a coastline way 
that is part of such a polygon will upload a new version of the 
multipolygon which likely has hundreds or even thousands of members. 
Look at some of the older polygons of that kind and you will find they 
have amassed hundreds of versions, and the web site times out when you 
wnat to view their history.

What's more, these waterbodies do not have an observable or even well 
defined outer boundary, forcing waterbody mappers to invent random 
straight lines on the far side of some gulf or bay or whatever. This 
runs counter to our maxim of mapping what is verifiable on the ground.

A node label would be easier to maintain, less wrong, and put less of a 
burden on both mappers and data consumers. The *only* reason people go 
to absurd lengths to draw these giant polygons (often they are even 
nested, with one bay being part of a larger bay being part of a gulf or 
so - where will it end, will someone map the Atlantic just to get a nice 
label in the middle...) is that they want to see a blue label.

That's what I object to. It is unnecessary, and in my view, abusing a 
mechanism not intended for this purpose, abusing our data model to map 
made-up boundaries, and all for cosmetics. It's an ugly hack that will, 
I hope, go away as soon as we find a good way to make labels based on 
label points.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"