Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Saturday 20 April 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I apologize for the unfortunate phrasing, and assure you that it was > intended to be a succinct characterization of your position regarding > indefinite boundaries, not of your personality or politics. Thanks, i appreciate that. When i present

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 3:43 PM Christoph Hormann wrote: > Being accused of being radically intolerant and other things kind of > limits my interest in this discussion with you. I apologize for the unfortunate phrasing, and assure you that it was intended to be a succinct characterization of

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Friday 19 April 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > It is interesting that the idea that large size abstract concepts > > projected onto arbitrarily delineated parts of the physical > > geography by cultural convention like bays, peninsulas, linear > > rivers and plateaus might not be suitable for

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 6:28 AM Christoph Hormann wrote: > It is interesting that the idea that large size abstract concepts > projected onto arbitrarily delineated parts of the physical geography > by cultural convention like bays, peninsulas, linear rivers and > plateaus might not be suitable

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

Hi, Am 18/04/2019 um 18.52 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > On Thursday 18 April 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> Please avoid the term "label painting." What you call "label >> painting" is the entirely reasonable desire to have recognized, named >> objects appear on the map with their names. > > I

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Friday 19 April 2019, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > But as already hinted i am not sure if the Drake Passage is > > something i would consider mappable in OSM based on local > > knowledge. > > But, without wishing to sound facetious, how do we then have > coastlines for Eurasia, Greenland &

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

Apr 19, 2019, 1:59 AM by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 07:26, Christoph Hormann <> o...@imagico.de > > > wrote: > >> On Thursday 18 April 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> > > And how do you verifiably determine if two things are part of the >> > >

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 07:26, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Thursday 18 April 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > And how do you verifiably determine if two things are part of the > > > same physical object? > > But as already hinted i am not sure if the Drake Passage is something i > would consider

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Thursday 18 April 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > And how do you verifiably determine if two things are part of the > > same physical object? For example: [examples snipped] > > I'm all for a rule of, 'if in doubt, split,' possibly paired with > creating a new relation to carry the grouping. You

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 21:00, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > The controversy lies not in the choice of tag but rather in the > presence of long indefinite boundaries. > I thought part of the controversy was the very large polygons involved. You can map a strait as a way or a node. Some may think of it

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 3:49 PM Paul Allen wrote: > How about natural=strait? For very large values of "strait." Or, if you > don't like the idea > of large values of strait, rewrite the wiki page changing > > A strait is a narrow area of water surrounded by land on two sides and by > water

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 20:27, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > We have that at one extreme, a case where almost all the boundaries > are indefinite. Nevertheless, the Drake Passage has some sort of > existence. If a map user reads the sentence, 'The _Nancie Belle,_ > having survived the perilous journey

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:53 PM Christoph Hormann wrote: > How should they determine that based on local knowledge? What if there > is disagreement? Is > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/83015625 > the same river as > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4769426 > or >

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Thursday 18 April 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > And therefore the Amazon, the Nile, or the Mississippi ought not to > be named in such a way that a large-scale map can show the names? Map producers are obviously free to show labels however they want. They don't need mappers to hand curate

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 5:49 AM Christoph Hormann wrote: > You apparently misunderstood what i said. My 'surveyable in a single > day by a single mapper' rule of thumb refers to mapping something as a > single feature. A river several thousand kilometers long for example. > The river is locally

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Thursday 18 April 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I doubt very much that you're saying what you intended here. > > It comes across as saying, for instance, that lakes too big to map on > the ground in a single day should not be mapped, or should not be > named. I think that making large

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:55 AM Christoph Hormann wrote: > As a rule of thumb i'd say something that can at least coarsely be > surveyed on the ground by a single mapper during a single day is > usually suitable to be mapped as a distinct named feature, provided it > is otherwise verifiable of

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Wednesday 17 April 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > I believe many people are using natural=peak to add the name of > plateaus / mesas / tablelands. Yes, that is definitely the case for buttes and small mesas - but then again these are features that can be verifiably mapped based on local

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 23:04, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > ...These would actually be an example of a feature > that does have a verifiable border, and could therefore be mapped as > an area by following the top of the cliff all the way around, but I > don't see any great benefit to doing all that

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

I did not intend to encourage mappers to start adding giant multipolygons for the Tibetan plateau or the Colorado Plateau. In fact I'm doing my best to discourage mappers from adding non-verifiable, huge areas to the database: see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3750 I

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

And here the idea of a new separate data layer (as in GIS) for geometries of fuzzy features rises again...  Waiting for its time. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Wednesday 17 April 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote: > [...] > > The way OSM usually works is someone stumbles over something in > reality, with a discernible name or property, and adds it to OSM. We > are, first and foremost, surveyors. > > The larger a feature becomes, the less suitable OSM is for

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

Apr 17, 2019, 11:29 AM by frede...@remote.org: > I think we all should stop seeking out one large-scale feature type > after the other that is "missing" from OSM and think about how to best > add them. In my view, the fact that these are underrepresented in OSM is > not an opportunity to

[Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

Josh & others, I think we need to take a break here from making OSM into a map of large-scale geographic features. This is getting out of hand. I vividly remember the endless discussions about bays and peninsulae. Drainage basins. Now plateaus. I don't remember mountain ranges in the recent past