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 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 time adding
> the data to OSM to illustrate their new feature.Indeed. And to make this very clear once again - no one suggested so far to universally disallow mapping bays using polygons. What has been said is that mapping bays with a node is the most common, most widely accepted and (in my opinion) in the vast majority of cases the most suitable way of mapping bays, in particular larger ones. And OSM-Carto should support mappers in this practice and not steer them to change it. OSM-Carto has historically for as long as i can remember supported nodes and polygons equally for features where both variants are commonly accepted methods to map something - housenumbers is the most prominent example probably - which can be mapped both on an address node or on a building and are shown in both cases with no preference for either of them. The same is perfectly appropriate to do for bays. What however is not appropriate is to incentivize mapping bays with polygons by labeling them from polygons in a different form that in particular for large bays is more suitable and attractive than when mapped with nodes. Or like for straits to label them when mapped with polygons but not show them at all when mapped with a linear way. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
