I have been following this discussion with interest since I would also like
to have bays and straits represented by some sort of polygon/area instead
of just nodes. However, I also agree that having overlapping relations
containing hundreds to thousands of natural=coastline ways would tax many
W dniu 17.11.2018 o 12:27, Frederik Ramm pisze:
> But I felt in this situation, they had overstepped their mandate,
> *especially* because they were not reacting to something that people
> were doing, but actively creating a new feature ("hey, you can now have
> huge named bays") and at the same
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 at 05:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Oh yes, certainly. Of course, in the concrete example at hand,
> re-tracing the whole boundary of the Gulf of Bothnia as a new way would
> have been worse (and impossible due to the 2000 node limit), and not
> even re-using the nodes would
Despite the remaining problem of just how best to map the Iarge Alaskan bay
that started this conversation, it's been very interesting. For now, I'll
just let it remain as a node and hope that a better label rendering
solution for a water body as large as Cook Inlet comes along during my
lifetime.
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 9:30 PM Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> It is sounding as if Frederik and Christoph are willing to tolerate
> limited experiments as long as we mostly don't damage the coastline,
>
Life would be so much easier if we had a sandbox.
> and keep our areas small enough not to break
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 3:36 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> You point out that neither a new polygon that shares nodes with coastline
> ways nor a complex
> relationship are going to play nicely with the toolchain. Being a bear of
> little brain, and lazy to
> boot, my first thought would be a crude
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 7:09 PM Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> My argument was that if you can get away with using a single node for
> labelling, then you don't have to burden all those 1,400 coastline ways
> with one (or two or three) extra relation memberships and that would be
> preferable.
>
I
I've made a proposal to tag boat school quite similar other schools, e.g.
amenity=ski_school. I've tried to keep the tagging as small as possible since
schools can give more information on their own webpages. Please have a look at
On Saturday 17 November 2018, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> This request also has nothing to do with relations that are large
> enough to break the tools. I'm confining my request here to features
> that are relatively small in extent - perhaps up to a few tens of km
> on a side.
Maybe with all
Hi,
On 11/17/18 19:36, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> You're welcome to this particular opinion in your personal capacity and
> are free to argue the point as passionately as you care to.
Why, thank you ;)
> When you have your DWG hat on
I don't, and never had in this whole discussion.
> A minority of
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 1:45 PM Christoph Hormann wrote:
> As we say in German: Umgekehrt wird ein Schuh draus.
We seem to be up against a cultural difference. English has proverbs like
'don't throw the baby out with the bath water,' and 'the perfect is the
enemy of the good.'
On Saturday 17 November 2018, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> The discussion of indefinite objects falls in the same category in my
> mind. We shouldn't have to discard what is known or defined about an
> object because some other part of the object is unknown or
> indefinite.
As we say in German: Umgekehrt
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 6:29 AM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Another pet peeve of mine is a dislike of what I call "relation mania",
> where we have land boundaries that can easily be part of 20 different
> relations on different admin levels and other boundary types. It's bad
> enough on land, and
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 10:23 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 11:29 AM Frederik Ramm
> wrote:
>
>> I do agree that while we should not "map for the renderer"
>>
>
> I would modify that a little. We shouldn't LIE for the renderer. Given
> two, equally valid (documented,
>
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 6:29 AM Frederik Ramm wrote:
[longish observation blaming OSM Carto for the fact that people
were coming to map bays as areas...]
> So, long story short, a couple of "my" maps suddenly started to show
> ugly dark-blue patches e.g. across the bay of Biscay, or the Gulf of
On 2018-11-17 16:35, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 3:52 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick
> wrote:
>
>> Should EU:NATO be a colon or a semi-colon?
>
> According to the French, it should be EU;OTAN. :)
If you are going to pick nits, get it right... In French it is UE;OTAN
The proposal specifies English—mi scuzi—прошу прощение—Entschuldigen Sie bitte
:-)
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 17, 2018, at 8:35 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 3:52 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> Should EU:NATO be a colon or a semi-colon?
>
> According to
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 3:52 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
Should EU:NATO be a colon or a semi-colon?
>
According to the French, it should be EU;OTAN. :)
--
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Hi Frederik (and, of course, everyone else). I appreciate your expanded
explanation on this.
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 11:29 AM Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> So, long story short, a couple of "my" maps suddenly started to show
> ugly dark-blue patches e.g. across the bay of Biscay, or the Gulf of
>
On 17/11/2018 11:27, Frederik Ramm wrote:
... it is good to
have a central map that provides valuable feedback, and keeps mappers
from, say, introducing random highway types by simply not rendering
them.
I'd agree there, and unfortunately the OSM-Carto style isn't fit for
purpose as that. It
On Saturday 17 November 2018, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> I do agree that while we should not "map for the renderer" it is good
> to have a central map that provides valuable feedback, and keeps
> mappers from, say, introducing random highway types by simply not
> rendering them. But I felt in this
Hi,
On 11/17/18 01:51, Paul Allen wrote:
> I'd find that bad enough even had he been right in his interpretation.
> Given how he has explained
> it so far,
...
Jumping back in here after a while, and assuming that the "he" here is
talking about me, let me offer a bit of backstory and explain
On Saturday 17 November 2018, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> [...]
> If I cannot be given an answer to such a concrete problem, I will not
> accept that the reason is that I am too stupid or unskilled to
> understand your superior wisdom. [...]
To be clear i am not attempting to somehow proove something in
23 matches
Mail list logo
