The rendering software would then derive the necessary quality information from .... I don't know. Bay recognition software?
Op do 15 nov. 2018 om 12:11 schreef Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de>: > On Thursday 15 November 2018, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > [...] > > > > I was thinking it would be much easier and perhaps even better to > > just draw an approximate shape consisting of maybe 20 or 30 nodes, > > big enough to define the area and cause it to render, but easy to > > draw and without involving any multipolygons. The issue here is > > admittedly one I am pursuing to get these water bodies to render in a > > manner proportional to their size and I suspect that many will be > > against it on that basis alone. Still, I thought it worthwhile to > > mention my idea here and see what you think about it as a "shorthand" > > solution. > > I think it is good you bring this up because many mappers have been > doing exactly that without asking - See for example: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/548210592 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/544856564 > > To put it right upfront: This is a bad idea. As you say the main > motivation for doing this is to make a bay show up in the map. > OSM-Carto has made the decision to incentivize this kind of mapping - > and as i like to point out to derivate from its self declared goal to > support mappers in consistent mapping towards steering mappers to map > in a way that is convenient for style developers. > > The 'polygons is universally the preferred way of mapping no matter if > verifiable or not' and 'way_area equals cartographic importance' > concepts have been meanwhile extended to natural=strait in OSM-Carto - > thereby not only incentivizing against mapping with nodes but also > against mapping with linear ways. > > To be fair: There are other map styles that do essentially the same so > it is not appropriate to exclusively blame OSM-Carto for this but it is > the only style that due to being rendered on OSMF infrastructure has a > true obligation not to do this. > > Mapping bays with polygons is always non-verifiable to a large extent. > Mapping bays with polygons as you describe it above is always > completely non-verifiable and amounts to pure (low quality) label > painting which should not be done and should not be incentivized by > maps with a mapper feedback goal. > > If you want to generate high quality labeling for bays in maps what you > need is the geometry of the waterbody the bay is part of (usually the > coastline) and the location of the bay - which can easily be specified > with a node in the way described on the wiki. This allows for much > higher quality labeling than a pretend-exact geometry either based on > coastlines or not. So the first thing you do with bay polygons for > generating quality labeling is to derive a node location from the > polygon and start from that - which makes the polygon drawing really > kind of insane. > > Long story short: My suggestion is and has always been to map bays with > nodes in those cases where this - together with the coastline - > perfectly documents the verifiable information available on the > geometry of the bay. In other situations (which exist but are > relatively rare) other verifiable modeling concepts can be considered. > Drawing a coarse labeling polygon is not one of them. > > Links to previous discussion on the matter: > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-October/thread.html#19775 > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/804 > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2068 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/imagico/diary/43957 > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Vr gr Peter Elderson
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
