Mar 31, 2019, 5:40 PM by sandor...@gmail.com: > > >> > > > >>Can you link some objects that you consider as tagged in a wrong way and > > > >>some similar ones tagged in way that you consider correct? > > > >>Currently it is unclear to me what is the problem. > > > >> > > > These notes have triggered my attention from the Re to my original mail. It > is hard to communicate if you really don not see the problem, though I think > you meant something else. What more, whether the referenced issues are > problems or not, depends on the individual criteria. Anyway, I need to add > some notes and representative examples to clarify the dilemma: is the recent > practice referencing coastline objects from other objects correct or not? > > > -Coastline object covered by a river > > https://osm.org/go/ZE6RWif_--?layers=T&way=22404175 > <https://osm.org/go/ZE6RWif_--?layers=T&way=22404175>> . The object is in > the coastline data erroneously left there when the other object has been > moved out from the coastline data. This island in the river will never show > up in the maps unless it is moved out from the coastline and added to the > river data as a hole. > > > -Similar example here > https://osm.org/go/0YQozaPCa?way=503202265 > <https://osm.org/go/0YQozaPCa?way=503202265>> but with the additional tag > place=island. If a renderer assumes in addition that this place is an area > and renders the places it will properly show up un the map. But even then, > the object is actually never part of the river object. All tags should be > removed and the polygon should be moved to the river data as a hole. > > Looks like something forgotten during creating https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3329487 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3329487> I now fixed this and yes - it made no sense here (it either should be within a water area represented by natural=coastline or inner way of that multipolygon). > > -As I mentioned in the mail, we have similar issues here > > https://osm.org/go/55iNMeSpU-?layers=HD&way=482531057 > <https://osm.org/go/55iNMeSpU-?layers=HD&way=482531057>> with the > natural=land objects. Even if it is declared deprecated many years ago this > tag is still actively used and there is a large number of natural=land > objects in the source data. Note that logically the suggestion to use the > place=island tag instead is just an implicit reimplementation of the > natural=land objects. > > I fixed this case. And yes, we still have many natural=land that should be removed. Fortunately this misuse of place=island is not supported by renderers, so it should discourage mistagging. Is it possible to have correctly tagged place=island on a way that is not inner way of multipolygon and without natural=coastline? Maybe validators can detect such cases as likely invalid. > > -There are also many coastline objects in lakes like here > > https://osm.org/go/JzzBB0Vmt--?layers=D&way=440616441 > <https://osm.org/go/JzzBB0Vmt--?layers=D&way=440616441>> . The same comments > are valid as in case of rivers. The question whether this object is a lake or > river is something else. > > For now I also updated it to be inner of the multipolygon. > > -A similar lake related example is here > > https://osm.org/go/e6GG5QpcE-?way=615864002 > <https://osm.org/go/e6GG5QpcE-?way=615864002>> but the coastline object is > perfectly declared as a hole in a lake. Still there might be a problem. The > coastline tag will suggest that the object will primarily be processed in the > context of Planet land masses. And, because it is land-on-land it might be > easily removed from the coastline data. In the similar cases any tags should > be removed except the inner tag. > > I removed natural=coastline. > > -Finally, the major issue that has motivated me to start this discussion, the > coastline referencing from objects like fiord/bay and sea. These, usually > monster sized objects, are difficult to understand. Why, who is using them, > what was the purpose to upload them? Even if someone uses them to see the > name variations or read the linked Wikipedia texts, the price is very high. > > See also https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/imagico/diary/47432 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/imagico/diary/47432> and other imagico posts criticizing this tagging method from a bit different angle.
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
