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

[john whelan]

I''m not quite sure I follow you on the benefits.  Could you expand a
little more in simple terms remembering not everyone here is a GIS expert.

Thanks John

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 17:56 David E. Nelson via Talk-ca <
talk-ca at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> My primary goal was not to get these bodies of water more visible on the
> map, as we all know that "tagging for the renderer" is a bad practice.  My
> objective was simply to give these bodies of water area definitions, so
> that more "points" on the sea could have names associated with them.
>
> - David E. Nelson
> OSM user "DENelson83"
> Courtenay, BC, Canada
>
> On Oct. 20, 2021 14:13, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>
> 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"
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20211020/b8248bc9/attachment-0001.htm>