I think this appears to be the reference Richard mentioned:
http://www.iho-ohi.net/iho_pubs/standard/S-23/S23_1953.pdf
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Richard Z. wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:41:18AM +0100, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > Could we try an example to see whether mappers agree on bay
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Could we try an example to see whether mappers agree on bay areas ? could
> you draw the Gulf of Biscay on a map ?
> This guy did it:
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-9_Y031ZiZQ/THowBMn81dI/Ci8/inSvDDa1DC4
> /s1600/Golf+van+Biskaje.jpg
> I might have
On 30.10.2014 12:51, Richard Z. wrote:
their definition of gulf of mexico is obviously
not compatible with our definition of bay
IMHO: this has some similarities to definition of regions like "the
Alps" or "the Rocky Mountains"...
Cheers,
Michael.
___
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:41:18AM +0100, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Could we try an example to see whether mappers agree on bay areas ? could
> you draw the Gulf of Biscay on a map ?
>
> This guy did it :
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-9_Y031ZiZQ/THowBMn81dI/Ci8/inSvDDa1DC4/s1600/Golf+van+Biskaje.
A lot of the bay points were imported.
Many bays do not have firm boundaries.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Could we try an example to see whether mappers agree on bay areas ? could
you draw the Gulf of Biscay on a map ?
This guy did it :
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-9_Y031ZiZQ/THowBMn81dI/Ci8/inSvDDa1DC4/s1600/Golf+van+Biskaje.jpg
I might have extended it a bit further to the west on the Spanish
On 29/10/2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 05:21:06PM +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> On 28/10/2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> well even if the issues were nonexistent, mapping the area of a bay seems
> to me like mapping an artificially introduced concept for which there is
> very l
On 28/10/2014, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> I admit I don't fully understand how your algorythm works. I can't
>> imagine how you reduce everything to nodes and still retain
>> information about orientation and curves. Can you change your
>> re
2014-10-29 14:46 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
> 2014-10-29 14:40 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
>
>> Also bays with very
>> flat or deep geometry will result in disproportionately small areas so
>> mappers may feel compelled to do some ugly workarounds if the name of the
>> bay isn't shown as expecte
2014-10-29 14:40 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
> Also bays with very
> flat or deep geometry will result in disproportionately small areas so
> mappers may feel compelled to do some ugly workarounds if the name of the
> bay isn't shown as expected.
>
disproportionate to what? water depth really doesn'
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 05:21:06PM +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> On 28/10/2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:18:43AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >> 2014-10-28 10:57 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
> >>
> >> The assumption is that a large bay will typically be more important
On 26.10.2014 17:12, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
Please, try mapping bays as areas - not as nodes.
but if you - for whatever reason ever - can't map it as area then it's
better to map it as node instead not mapping it at all...
Just an example: I did it some times ago with "something" (can't
rem
On Tuesday 28 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>
> That's actually a very nice rendering. The channels in particular
> seem to be oriented very naturally. But when I look at the underlying
> osm data (nodes), it is much less clear how those features are
> oriented. I feel like the rendering t
On Tuesday 28 October 2014, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>
> But are all bays 'mostly surrounded by land' or do some bays also
> have very wide entrypoints (in addition to two pockets to trigger
> this peninsula case)? And yes, I know it can always be solved by
> drawing area manually if the algorithm won'
On 28/10/2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:18:43AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> 2014-10-28 10:57 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
>>
>> The assumption is that a large bay will typically be more important than a
>> smaller bay. For a good rendering you'd show only the more importan
On 27/10/2014, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Since for label rendering you don't really need a polygon there is
> little point in actually generating it in the first place. But i have
> implemented and used techniques not unlike the algorithm described for
> rendering bay and strait labels, like in
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 October 2014, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> > > If you want to formulate a formal mathematical rule for where the
> > > node for a bay is best placed: Place it so the variance of the
> > > distance of the node to the bay's shores is minimized.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:18:43AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2014-10-28 10:57 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
>
> > Also, I am reading the arguments about estimating bay area so I am curious
> > - when was the last time someone asked about bay area in square kilometers?
> > I think it makes only
2014-10-28 10:57 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
> Also, I am reading the arguments about estimating bay area so I am curious
> - when was the last time someone asked about bay area in square kilometers?
> I think it makes only sense in the context of territorial waters, fishing
> or
> mining rights etc.
>
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 04:28:53PM -0400, Eric Kidd wrote:
> But the key point here is that none of these official sources represent
> bays as polygons. GNIS uses a pointssomewhere in the bay. The nautical
> charts print the name somewhere in the middle of the bay. Effectively, the
> official data
On Tuesday 28 October 2014, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> > If you want to formulate a formal mathematical rule for where the
> > node for a bay is best placed: Place it so the variance of the
> > distance of the node to the bay's shores is minimized. Most
> > existing nodes comply with this rule remarka
Dana 27. 10. 2014. 21:30 osoba "Eric Kidd"
napisala je:
>
> The rendering onopenstreetmap.orgis pretty good: it just prints the bay
name at the marked point, and shows it across a reasonable range of scales.
There are some weird cases with nested bays, but those are weird on the
nautical charts,
On Monday 27 October 2014, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>
> IMHO, the most controversial thing in this all is that the approach
> Christoph is proposing would require us to not map natural=bay but
> "natural=bay_entry" instead, and that is obviously exactly where the
> fuzzy part is. That is, a mapper woul
When working near the coast of Maine in the US, I see lots of bays. In
most cases, the ultimate source data for the bay names seems to be various
government maps and databases: GNIS, ancient nautical charts, or whatever.
There's a high degree of agreement between sources: If an island has 4
unname
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2014-10-27 17:37 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann :
>
> But this is exactly what does not work with a hand mapped
> polygon either
> since the edge of the bay is not well defined.
>
>
>
> it will work in most cases, and only giv
2014-10-27 17:37 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann :
>
> But this is exactly what does not work with a hand mapped polygon either
> since the edge of the bay is not well defined.
>
it will work in most cases, and only give questionable information when you
are close to the fuzzy end towards the open s
On 27/10/2014, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Monday 27 October 2014, Janko Mihelić wrote:
>>
>> Reverse geocoding. A boat comes to a bay, captain looks on a screen,
>> and it says "You are in Guantanamo Bay".
>
> But this is exactly what does not work with a hand mapped polygon either
> since the
On Monday 27 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> >
> > Have you tried it?
> >
> > On the contrary - due to its simplicity it is a very robust
> > algorithm, it will hardly ever generate something completely wrong
> > and fail gracefully in difficult cases. And as said it is strait
> > away to
On Monday 27 October 2014, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> > I can't help but notice that in the whole discussion here no
> > argument has been put formward indicating a practical advantage of
> > bays mapped as polygons other than the ease of rendering labels.
>
> Reverse geocoding. A boat comes to a bay,
2014-10-27 16:24 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann :
>
> I can't help but notice that in the whole discussion here no argument
> has been put formward indicating a practical advantage of bays mapped
> as polygons other than the ease of rendering labels.
>
Reverse geocoding. A boat comes to a bay, capta
On 27/10/2014, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Monday 27 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> >
>> > This extremely simple approach will probably result in reasonable
>> > polygons for label placement in more than half the cases. You can
>> > easily improve the algorithm of course to properly
2014-10-27 16:24 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann :
> No, that is not how OSM works. The mappers can choose a method to map
> they deem appropriate - which in this case quite clearly is nodes (less
> than 0.5 percent ways and relations according to taginfo).
>
the same holds true for countries, ther
On Monday 27 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> >
> > This extremely simple approach will probably result in reasonable
> > polygons for label placement in more than half the cases. You can
> > easily improve the algorithm of course to properly deal with
> > various special cases, in particu
On 27/10/2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:44:01AM +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> I'm really curious what your method to figure out the bay area from
>> the node is, because even as a human I find that most bay nodes can
>> lead to many different interpretations.
>
> you don
On 27/10/2014, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Monday 27 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> I'm really curious what your method to figure out the bay area from
>> the node is, because even as a human I find that most bay nodes can
>> lead to many different interpretations.
>
> There are a lot
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:28:39PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2014-10-27 12:16 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
>
> > > Besides, we really need to deal with object that have fuzzy borders
> > > already, e.g., some of the natural=wetland object come to my mind as an
> > > example. I quickly browsed
2014-10-27 12:16 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
> > Besides, we really need to deal with object that have fuzzy borders
> > already, e.g., some of the natural=wetland object come to my mind as an
> > example. I quickly browsed through the related pages and discussions, for
> > some strange reason the fuzz
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:33:48PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> > On Sunday 26 October 2014, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > > > Furthermore the outer edge of a bay, i.e. the edge that is not
> > > > coastline is usually not well defined and would re
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:44:01AM +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> On 26/10/2014, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> > I don't see what information is missing and cannot be easily determined
> > automatically with a properly placed node that is contained in an
> > area - except for the outer edge of cou
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Marc Gemis wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Ilpo Järvinen
> wrote:
> Besides, we really need to deal with object that have fuzzy
> borders
> already, e.g., some of the natural=wetland object come to my
> mind as an
> example. I quick
On Monday 27 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> >
> > If you think about it a bit and do not try to place the node where
> > you would place the label (which depends on the map projection
> > anyway) properly placing a node for a bay is usually quite simple.
> > The most difficult are long,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Ilpo Järvinen
wrote:
> Besides, we really need to deal with object that have fuzzy borders
> already, e.g., some of the natural=wetland object come to my mind as an
> example. I quickly browsed through the related pages and discussions, for
> some strange reason
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Sunday 26 October 2014, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > > Furthermore the outer edge of a bay, i.e. the edge that is not
> > > coastline is usually not well defined and would require an
> > > arbitrary cutoff.
> >
> > Yes, cutoff is unfortunately qui
I had a proposal about mapping peninsulas [1] and it involved adding
peninsula=* tags to coastlines. I think bays should be mapped the same way,
on coastline ways. The question is what tags we should use. Adding new ways
and gluing them to coastlines, when coastlines themselves make a bay is in
my
2014-10-26 21:38 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann :
> Specific arguments aside - i am not sure if you realize the consequences
> it would have if subareas of oceans would generally be mapped as
> polygons - large bays usually contain smaller bays and are parts of a
> sea and there might be a strait bet
2014-10-26 19:00 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann :
> Doable for sure but an awfully bad idea, mapping bays as areas would
> mean two features for the same object (coastline polygon and bay area).
>
I don't see "one object". There is a coastline (linear division between
land and sea, NOT a polygon i
2014-10-26 17:12 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
> Please, try mapping bays as areas - not as nodes.
+1. Please do this also for place=country and other place objects that are
indeed describing polygons and not points.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@
On 26/10/2014, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> I don't see what information is missing and cannot be easily determined
> automatically with a properly placed node that is contained in an
> area - except for the outer edge of course, which is usually
> ill-defined though as you said yourself.
>
> If you
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 05:12:20PM +0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Please, try mapping bays as areas - not as nodes.
>
> It is really rare to see it done this way - but it is doable, see
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/5CQ
not practical in most cases. Almost every bay is part of a larger bay
and s
On Sunday 26 October 2014, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > Furthermore the outer edge of a bay, i.e. the edge that is not
> > coastline is usually not well defined and would require an
> > arbitrary cutoff.
>
> Yes, cutoff is unfortunately quite arbitrary. But node placement is
> completely arbitrary
> Doable for sure but an awfully bad idea, mapping bays as areas would
> mean two features for the same object (coastline polygon and bay area).
Coastline polygon and bay area is not the same object. Yes, part of border
is
shared - it is nothing wrong. Also it is possible to use for example
multip
On Sunday 26 October 2014, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Please, try mapping bays as areas - not as nodes.
>
> It is really rare to see it done this way - but it is doable, see
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/5CQ
Doable for sure but an awfully bad idea, mapping bays as areas would
mean two features for
Please, try mapping bays as areas - not as nodes.
It is really rare to see it done this way - but it is doable, see
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/5CQ
Bay mapped as node is hard to process - for example: deciding whatever name
should be
rendered. It is completely impossible to retrieve information wh
53 matches
Mail list logo
