Thanks Frederik,
if I interpret your answer correctly it is that we should not map these
names at all (at least not within the scope of OSM database and
OSM-Carto rendering), is that correct?
As a mapper I would like to know what the strategy is so I don't waste
my effort on dead ends.
A technical comment: I don't see a need for wavy polygons or something
fancy like that. Just regular polygons. They are by definition fuzzy,
the polygon borders aren't supposed to be rendered, it's just a guide
for renderers to know where to place text label. I see no need for a new
datatype, I think the database is ready for fuzzy areas today, and is
already being used (bays and straits).
However, it becomes more and more clear that the leading profiles in the
OSM community actually doesn't care *that* much about rural/outdoor
map-making, or at least that the current view of what the data model
should be is more important. I certainly don't mean this is a derogatory
manner, it's perfectly fine to have that view. However, I on the other
hand care very much about rural and outdoor map-making and desire that
be an important end use for the OSM data I contribute, and I get a bit
confused. I get thrown between hope and despair regarding the general
community's view on this. A clearly stated strategy would be nice.
Without that I get I like "maybe if I come up with a better idea to
store these names they'll like it", but if we don't want them in the
first place, I'd appreciate if we just say so.
I know lettering across the alps and other huge areas is a favorite
example, but in my context it's much more about the small ones. In rural
areas we have about 5-10 of these types of names per 10x10 km square.
Not mapping those make rural maps and outdoor maps a lot less useful
than they could be. These names are used all the time by outdoor people.
Not having them in large disqualifies OSM to be used for outdoor map end
products, but if that is what the community wants I'm certainly ready to
accept that. There's no use to map areas which we never intend to make
useful maps for, so then I'll just skip those. There are still other
areas to map.
/Anders
On 2020-12-21 13:57, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 21.12.20 10:20, Anders Torger wrote:
In the mountains we have an number of named plateaus. There is a tag
proposal for natural=plateau, but just like with natural=peninsula and
similar tags there is an underlying question that we really need an
answer to first: should we have fuzzy areas or should we not?
I think I have laid out my point in
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-December/056823.html
Our current data model is not suitable for mapping fuzzy areas. We can
only do "precise". Also, as you correctly pointed out, or basic tenet
of
verifiability doesn't work well with fuzzy data.
So the one questions is, do we want fuzzy areas, the other is, if we
want them, how can they be established - because in our current
database
they cannot.
I think fuzzy areas make a lot of sense for cartography, but I strongly
object to people adding hand-wavy polygons to OSM for fuzzy areas.
We know there are disadvantages and no solution is 100%
perfect, but sometimes there's a higher goal to fulfill.
Having a nice lettering across the Alps is certainly not a "higher
goal"
for OSM as a whole; forcing fuzzy polygons for that into OSM is
irrelevant for most and outright damaging for some use cases, and the
advantage it would have for the one single use case of map rendering
does not justify it.
Please stop trying to frame this as "cartographers have a right to
abuse
the data model, and if someone doesn't want that, they need to present
a
viable alternative". We've come very far in OSM without such abuse and
I
don't see why it should suddenly be introduced.
Bye
Frederik
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
