[Talk-us] Groups of lakes (was: Strategy for Naming Parts of a Large Park)

[Wolfgang Zenker]

* Kevin Kenny  [160411 02:22]:
> [..]
> Will the same idea work with waterways?  There are a lot of places near 
> me where there's a collective name: "Preston Ponds", "Essex Chain of 
> Lakes" ...  with individual waterbodies having the unimaginative names 
> "Upper Pond," "Middle Pond," "Lower Pond" or "First Lake," "Second 
> Lake," ... "Eighth Lake".  The naming (and rendering) on those is kind 
> of messed up as well. These, too, tend to be strung out in a linear 
> formation since each chain is on a river.

I have started to tag these groups of lakes as a site relation.
One recent example would be https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6077541
The group is collectively known as "Hellroaring Lakes", with some
of the individual lakes having their own names and others being
unnamed. The drawback of this solution: the name of the site relation
is currently not rendered on the standard map, nor is it found by
nominatim. But I expect both to change eventually if this tagging
gets used more often.

Wolfgang

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Strategy for Naming Parts of a Large Park

[Kevin Kenny]

On 04/10/2016 12:24 PM, Elliott Plack wrote:
Agreed! I think we should do a super relation too, also because with 
all of the parts spread over a large linear area, the label only 
appears in the middle, and thus is often not shown in the popular 
southern area.


On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:40 PM stevea > wrote:


>  The
>individual areas are generally nodes tagged leisure=park with
names like
>"Patapsco Valley State Park - McKeldin Area".  The whole
park-in-a-park
>thing feels a little off to me, but it does get the names
rendered on the
>default map.  :-/

This sounds similar to what in our California State Parks system are
known as "units."  These are discontiguous (don't touch each others'
borders) park areas represented in OSM as either polygon or
multipolygon, but are named similarly.  For example, "Henry Cowell
Redwoods State Park" and "Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park (Fall
Creek Unit)."  I agree, this doesn't seem ideal, and perhaps a
super-relation to tie them all together would be yet more accurate,
but this naming convention both seems correct and "gets the job done"
(e.g. causes a pleasing rendering that conveys the correct names). 

When you guys sort this out, can you share technical details with me? 
There are a bunch of state forests near me that are similarly fragmented 
on the map (a unit within a forest within the Adirondack Park) and I'd 
like to do the same thing with them.


Will the same idea work with waterways?  There are a lot of places near 
me where there's a collective name: "Preston Ponds", "Essex Chain of 
Lakes" ...  with individual waterbodies having the unimaginative names 
"Upper Pond," "Middle Pond," "Lower Pond" or "First Lake," "Second 
Lake," ... "Eighth Lake".  The naming (and rendering) on those is kind 
of messed up as well. These, too, tend to be strung out in a linear 
formation since each chain is on a river.


I don't want to tag for the renderer, but if there's a way to have the 
tagging make sense, I'd like to hear about it. Reading the Wiki pages 
about relations and multipolygons left me more confused than when I began.


--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Strategy for Naming Parts of a Large Park

[Elliott Plack]

Agreed! I think we should do a super relation too, also because with all of
the parts spread over a large linear area, the label only appears in the
middle, and thus is often not shown in the popular southern area.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:40 PM stevea  wrote:

> >  The
> >individual areas are generally nodes tagged leisure=park with names like
> >"Patapsco Valley State Park - McKeldin Area".  The whole park-in-a-park
> >thing feels a little off to me, but it does get the names rendered on the
> >default map.  :-/
>
> This sounds similar to what in our California State Parks system are
> known as "units."  These are discontiguous (don't touch each others'
> borders) park areas represented in OSM as either polygon or
> multipolygon, but are named similarly.  For example, "Henry Cowell
> Redwoods State Park" and "Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park (Fall
> Creek Unit)."  I agree, this doesn't seem ideal, and perhaps a
> super-relation to tie them all together would be yet more accurate,
> but this naming convention both seems correct and "gets the job done"
> (e.g. causes a pleasing rendering that conveys the correct names).
>
> SteveA
> California
>
-- 
Elliott Plack
http://elliottplack.me
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us