Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> 14 dec. 2020 kl. 19:06 skrev Ture Pålsson : > > I have implemented the merge-adjacent-areas scheme in my renderer. I’ll try > to get a demo up… :-) > > Having said that, as a renderer implementer, I have a slight preference for > the relation method. It is s implyeasier to join things on

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

On 16/12/2020 08:41, Ture Pålsson via Tagging wrote: Maybe it would be better to use a convex hull... and then polylabel, and then have all the labels repel each other while being attracted to that point? Preferably this springy attract/repel should account for the text outline rather than

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-15 08:48 Anders Torger a écrit: However I'll soon go through these edits again and then I will add multipolygon for the split, and if your renderer takes that into account we should end up with a single multipolygon. I think in the case of Muddus it will work in all cases, ie we

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-15 23:38 skrev Martin Koppenhoefer: Take a look back what I mentioned 3 days ago in my first answer: "...If we want to map all those "meta areas" with names we would do well to think about additional ways of delimiting space (i.e. different kind of geometry objects), e.g. a fuzzy

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

To share a local varietal, we have "Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park" and we have "Henry Cowell Redwoods State Park (Fall Creek Unit)," slightly non-contiguous but managed together. In the real world (too) this sort of "grouping between things that belong together or are part of a same thing"

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 10:42 Uhr schrieb Anders Torger : > We should probably not have all these possible generalized areas in our > db. Just as we probably shouldn't have a bedrock map in the db either, at > least not until it can manage layers. > > But we could simply pick one criteria,

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 15:59 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > Re: “ a couple of islets with a collective name” > > We have a tag for that: place=archipelago for a group of islands. > > There isn’t a common tag for a group of lakes with one name, probably > because

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 08:51 Uhr schrieb Anders Torger : > The simple answer is that this naming concept is fundamentally broken, and > that we need to have some other concept, such as fuzzy areas. > I agree that there isn't really a concept for naming larger (natural) areas. In OSM you can

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Re: the Great Lakes - Very large archipelagos, like "Indonesia" or "The Phillipines" or "The British Isles", shouldn't be mapped as multipolygons because they would be ridiculously huge. Generally the tag place=archipelago is used for small to mid-sized groups of islands. Now, it is possible to

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

That's a good question, Brian. On its face, it would be more consistent to keep this in the place=* key. I like both of your choices, as the concept doesn't really have a single word to describe "lakes" in the plural as distinct from the singular (as archipelago does for island). The

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Wouldn't it be more consistent to keep it in the same key, and call it place=lake_group? Or even place=lakes? Would this be used for something like the Great Lakes in USA/Canada or is that too large of a feature? On Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 12:05 PM stevea wrote: > +1. Joseph's suggestion is a

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

+1. Joseph's suggestion is a fine example of "OSM can and does coin new tags on occasion." Adding a nice boost, there is a suggestion that "similar" tagging be used as an example of how to define / use / document the new tag. Great! On Dec 15, 2020, at 6:56 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

That is stated even better than I meant to state. Yes, JOSM's relation editor is "the best there is." On Dec 15, 2020, at 1:21 AM, Peter Elderson wrote: > > stevea : > (Personally, I find JOSM’s relation editor to be one of its most elegant > features for a data structure as relatively

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Re: “ a couple of islets with a collective name” We have a tag for that: place=archipelago for a group of islands. There isn’t a common tag for a group of lakes with one name, probably because this is only common in some countries, especially near the Arctic region. We’ve talked about this issue

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

I'll make a small change to my naming strategy: use one multipolygon per natural tag set, and thus minimize the number of same-named polygons. Normally, when naming entities which has all the same natural tags but separate areas, such as a couple of ponds or islets with a collective name

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

When I started using JOSM, which is not so long ago, I hated it. If one is used to graphic software from say Adobe etc, many things in the user interface feel backwards. But now when I've got into it, one can really work effectively. When I started I didn't really understand the multipolygon

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

We should probably not have all these possible generalized areas in our db. Just as we probably shouldn't have a bedrock map in the db either, at least not until it can manage layers. But we could simply pick one criteria, document the definition of the "fuzzy area" and have that. Some

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

stevea : > (Personally, I find JOSM’s relation editor to be one of its most elegant > features for a data structure as relatively complex as a relation. > I am not qualified to judge elegance, but I find JOSM's relation editor the best there is. I don't think relations are very complex data

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Yes we actually have some of that up here too. I've chosen generally not to map it though as one cannot really verify it on the satellite photos, and here in the vast nature in north it's not really reasonable to visit all these places on foot so one have to rely on satellite photos for large

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

sent from a phone > On 15. Dec 2020, at 06:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > If I look at a map eg > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Forest#/media/File:Relief_Map_of_Germany,_Black_Forest.png, > it tells me that the Balck Forest is a more or less oval-shaped area in > Southern Germany.

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

A little less “my way is the right way” (complaining, plain and simple) and a little more “ah, OSM does what OSM does, I understand how I can both contribute AND make use of it,” please. Lots of us do this (both) and actually improve the map while we’re at it! (Map data, map documentation via

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> 15 dec. 2020 kl. 08:26 skrev Anders Torger : > > And about wetlands, couldn't those be just rendered on top of forests so we > didn't have to make these complex multipolygons? It does make sense to have overlapping wetland and forest, though. To take a swedish example: down here in 08-land

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> 15 dec. 2020 kl. 08:26 skrev Anders Torger : > > And about wasting mapper's time. What about that we have to punch holes and > make river areas for rivers nowadays? Punch holes for waters in forest areas? Anecdote: When I first started toying with rendering about ten years ago, I had

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Impressive work! I had missed myself that the river flows through. To tie it together I would have made a multipolygon with two outers one on each side of the river, and I think I've already done that in some other wetland with the same issue. However that is not a fool-proof solution, as in

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Some more points after a night's sleep: I just remembered, another issue with opentopomap is that it doesn't render wetland names at all, which may be a bit strange for a map with topology. But we could look at some other map, geofabrik for example, and of course it renders the same way as

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Fascinating thread, fascinating activities it seems to have given rise to! I applaud this dialog as I enjoy it. > On Dec 14, 2020, at 9:22 PM, Ture Pålsson via Tagging > wrote: >> 14 dec. 2020 kl. 22:30 skrev Anders Torger : >> >> Cool! It would be really nice to see a demo :-) > >

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> 14 dec. 2020 kl. 22:30 skrev Anders Torger : > > Cool! It would be really nice to see a demo :-) Rijmmoáhpe renders sort of reasonably now at http://lab3.turepalsson.se/map . (On the generated PDF, not on the ”slippy map”. And it’s a bit hard to find, since

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> 14 dec. 2020 kl. 19:06 skrev Ture Pålsson (that’s me!): > > I think it would be good to keep the set of possible values for the ’type’ > tag small, so I’d like to propose another level of indirection; something like > > type=named_area, named_area=natural, natural=wetland, name=Peter’s

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 21:41, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > What I don't like in OSM is naming for large geographic areas, Thanks for the explanation, Frederik, but I'd like to make a couple of points like "the Alps", "the Black Forest", or "the Bay of Biscay", for two > reasons: > > First, there

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

I agree with Mateusz that the wiki IS the project's standard document for the meaning of tagging (from the perspective of data consumers) and how to tag (from the perspective of mappers). Note that both perspectives are important. But to address the specific point, there is no standard document

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Cool! It would be really nice to see a demo :-) I would be fine with your naming scheme, however you'll have to rely on the adjacent rendering as I will be removing all relations per request. As said I actually had them mostly for make my editing easier (without them it becomes harder to

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

I certainly agree that we should not waste mapper's time, but in this case it was mainly actually to make it easier for myself with JOSM to find my way back to all small pieces in a fragmented landscape. Not having this relation makes editing a fair bit harder as you can't really see which

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Dec 14, 2020, 22:03 by and...@torger.se: > Ok, understood. However as far as I know OSM lacks a standard document > for render implementors to actually know how data should be interpreted. > In part it is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/ in part it is decision of authors of map style how they

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Ok, understood. However as far as I know OSM lacks a standard document for render implementors to actually know how data should be interpreted. And if OSM-Carto does it wrong (albeit due to technical limitations), how can we expect that anyone else would do it right? Unfortunately I think the

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Re; "Don't adjust your mapping to what you believe is most convenient for data users" I know this recommendation is unpopular with some mappers, because many of us just want to see a good-looking map, and if it takes duplicating relations and extra mapping work we will do it. But remember that

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> Anders Torger hat am 14.12.2020 15:49 geschrieben: > > Okay, but why does the OSM-Carto renderer, and all other renderers known > to man(?) make multiple text labels then, when it should be a single > one? OSM-Carto renders labels primarily based on the following constraints: * due to

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

14 dec. 2020 kl. 15:49 skrev Anders Torger : > > Okay, but why does the OSM-Carto renderer, and all other renderers known to > man(?) make multiple text labels then, when it should be a single one? Look > at the result, it looks horrible. Do you really think this is the way it > should be

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

On 2020-12-14 15:22, Christoph Hormann wrote: Anders Torger hat am 14.12.2020 14:01 geschrieben: But i already explained that the fact that in OSM we add name tags to parts of roads, waterways, wetlands, forests or woods does not mean these are somehow separate from other features with the

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Yes, I agree in full, and I forgot to add in that post that I believe the long-term solution for this wetland and other natural features like it is indeed to use some fuzzy-area feature. For some reason (I wonder why...?) I've got the sense that such a feature could be debated for years to

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> Anders Torger hat am 14.12.2020 14:01 geschrieben: > > > To make a specific answer to "what additional verifiable local > knowledge" this relation is intended to cover, is that the wetland is a > single named entity, not multiple entities named the same. But i already explained that the

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

I should have added that a long-term solution is probably some sort of collective concept to handle fuzzy natural areas, and then this wetland will also be named as a fuzzy natural area, although less fuzzy than your typical natural fuzzy area :-). But how long will that take to get

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

It sounds like what we are asking for is the ability to tag a rough polygon in the approximate area where a label should be placed for a known but not strictly bounded toponymic feature (mountain range, water body, etc). That would give a hint to renderers as to the location and most importantly,

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

To make a specific answer to "what additional verifiable local knowledge" this relation is intended to cover, is that the wetland is a single named entity, not multiple entities named the same. And here's some elaboration. This is 4 km wide wetland, in the real world named as a single entity,

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> Anders Torger hat am 14.12.2020 07:59 geschrieben: > > > I'll gladly answer questions, but I think you need to rephrase. I > suppose it is some hidden critique in there, but I honestly do not > understand the question. It would be better for me if you put words on > the critique instead

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Hello Frederik, good and clearly communicated points! I very much appreciate that, and I agree with the issues you describe. Those are indeed real problems. However, these fuzzy regions also exist on a small scale, and in my case it's always been about that. The features I'm mapping now are

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Hi, On 14.12.20 12:20, Anders Torger wrote: > My sense is that OSM community do want naming in nature as well, but > only if it can be made very simple. Unfortunately that is not always > compatible with reality, and here we are... Personally I think naming is desirable for clear features. This

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Yeah, you may be right, but I see it like this: in cases where "complex" naming is a reality, complex schemes are unavoidable, if we want to support it at all. It's not like one would use the most complex method in every case, just where it's needed. To use an old saying, Einstein I think:

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Relations are quite obnoxious in regular editing and also during actually using the data. Dec 14, 2020, 08:07 by and...@torger.se: > > Why is the relation problematic (honest question)? > > > I was starting to think that some sort of naming relation could be the > answer, ie you put both peaks

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Sorry for perhaps adding further complexity, but if you haven't noted, one thing that crawls under the surface when it comes to names in nature is this "holy" principle: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability Names of natural features often don't have strict borders. Wetlands as

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

For reference, here's Rijmmoáhpe again, a wetland which is about 4 km across, consisting of both bog and marsh: https://www.torger.se/anders/downloads/Screenshot_2020-12-13-OpenStreetMap.png It's located in Muddus national park, Sweden. I'm quite sure the recommendation Christoph refers to is

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> 13 dec. 2020 kl. 16:15 skrev Christoph Hormann : > > I am trying to understand what the issue is with the recommendation for > mapping you have received from multiple sides here. Just to clarify, could you summarise what that recommendation is, for the Rijmmoáhpe case? The thread has become

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Why is the relation problematic (honest question)? I was starting to think that some sort of naming relation could be the answer, ie you put both peaks in a relation with for example type=name; natural=mountain; name=Kebnekaise. In addition one should write clearly that peak serves dual

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

I'll gladly answer questions, but I think you need to rephrase. I suppose it is some hidden critique in there, but I honestly do not understand the question. It would be better for me if you put words on the critique instead of wrapping it in a question. I think it's fairly obvious that if

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Like every Swede I have climbed the mountain, so I do have some local knowledge :-). There is an arete there, that's correct, but it's not named. Kebnekaise is the name of the mountain. It's Sami lands, as far as I understand the names of the mountains came first, then the names of the peaks

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Currently the features with the tag "name=Kebnekaise" are 2 ways which extend north-south and to the west from these two peaks and are also tagged natural=arete (an arete is a knife-edged ridge formed between 2 glaciers). https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/123215393#map=13/67.8934/18.4509=C

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Dec 13, 2020, 19:58 by and...@torger.se: > > Do you have a suggestion of how to map Sweden's highest mountain, Kebnekaise? > > > The mountain is called Kebnekaise, it has two peaks, one is called > "Sydtoppen" ("the south peak"), the other "Nordtoppen" ("the north peak"). > > I admit that I

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> Anders Torger hat am 13.12.2020 20:08 geschrieben: > > [...] I think to actually have them all > tied together in a unit is still a good idea, [...] That does not answer my question. -- Christoph Hormann https://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

A common established method to name natural features with separated parts is as a multipolygon with several outers. There is one object that ties them all together. In this case a multipolygon is not possible, since the member types differ and "outers" share segments. I think to actually have

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Do you have a suggestion of how to map Sweden's highest mountain, Kebnekaise? The mountain is called Kebnekaise, it has two peaks, one is called "Sydtoppen" ("the south peak"), the other "Nordtoppen" ("the north peak"). Currently it's mapped with the two peaks where one is called

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

1) To tag a named "Torp" it sounds like there are several different correct options, depending on what currently exists at the location. If there is a single family home or a couple of homes used as residences, it would be a place=isolated_dwelling mapped as a node at the centre. If it is still

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> Anders Torger hat am 13.12.2020 15:28 geschrieben: > > So what I've settled for (for now) is as follows: > - same name on each part (the only way to get the data useful *today*) > - a new relation with all parts as members (role unset), type=natural, > natural=wetland, name= I am trying to

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> 13 dec. 2020 kl. 15:21 skrev Paul Allen : > > I'm probably misunderstanding this, but torp doesn't seem to be a type of > building. The tag building=torp says that this building IS a torp (as > opposed to a house, or a shop, or a garage, or a shed, or a barn). > If you feel a need to

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Thanks. I also think that only having them tied by name is not a good concept. So what I've settled for (for now) is as follows: - same name on each part (the only way to get the data useful *today*) - a new relation with all parts as members (role unset), type=natural, natural=wetland, name=

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 12:56, Ture Pålsson via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > In many cases, the buildings are long gone and just the name remains. I > *thought* that those places were still labelled in upright letters in the > ”official” maps, but it turns out that I was wrong —

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

We have these in the north as well, often old soldier settlements. Many are are still inhabited today, but the original building most often long gone. We also have those that are abandoned with little sign of that there ever being a building there. Strangely enough, sometimes the names for

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

sent from a phone > On 13. Dec 2020, at 12:30, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Tagging all parts with a truly unique Id in a special key could do the trick, > but who issues/manages the unique ids? wikidata? wikidata:part=Q123? Cheers Martin ___

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> 13 dec. 2020 kl. 11:40 skrev stevea : > > Thank you, Ture: an excellent example and a great brief overview. From my > perspective (if I were more of an OSM beginner), I might ask about the > example of "torp:" might creating a tag like building=torp seem like it's on > a good track?

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Peter, I think (but am not 100% certain) that super-relations are the data structure you look for, the "different type of relation." It isn't QUITE a "different type" but rather a method of gathering relations together that structures them "sensibly," so, for example, a renderer can make sense

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Anders, once again, our posts crossed each other! Thank you for the example – Nominatim helped me find their location immediately! The rendering of swamp distinct from bog "happens to my eyes," quite nicely. I only MIGHT see the problem with the naming being "repeated" — it might be correct,

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

My answer only targets the question in the subject. No matter whether you put the same name on all parts, or on or some kind of collective, you need a way for data users to know that all the parts together have a name. Tagging the same name on all parts makes the name a free text id needing

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Thanks. There are quite many abandoned tags for grouping things together, so site is in good company. It seems like site is mostly used for human-made features though, so I'm not sure it's suitable for natural features. For now I don't have the intention that the "natural" relation is going

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

It was just an example. Peak is "close enough" for now, and you can argue that it works for both mountain and individual peaks. That would be okay, but the problem with that is that there is no information for the renderer which peaks that should be shown when zoomed out. Some renderers just

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

I just wanted to add `Relation:site` [1] to this topic. This is not an approved tag (proposal [2], seems abandoned), but it is used to group 'things' together which cannot be grouped simply with a multipolygon. I do not expect this relation type to be rendered 'correctly' (whatever that may

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Thank you, Ture: an excellent example and a great brief overview. From my perspective (if I were more of an OSM beginner), I might ask about the example of "torp:" might creating a tag like building=torp seem like it's on a good track? Maybe not, as the value is a Swedish word, but there is

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Here's a real example of how this naming scheme ends up looking: https://www.torger.se/anders/downloads/Screenshot_2020-12-13-OpenStreetMap.png I have put the name on each part which is the enduring recommendation I've got. Some parts are multipolygons, some are just closed ways, as required.

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> 12 dec. 2020 kl. 16:18 skrev Anders Torger : > > Indeed, place=locality seems to be a dead end, it's been misused quite much > and there's talks about removing it from OSM-Carto, and you can't render good > maps from it, so it's technically a poor concept as well. Around where I live

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Anders, I didn't see this until after I sent my reply. I believe this list here is interested in what you call "missing features," as a list. I look at them as challenges of ours or frustrations of yours which can either be explained or solved. You might not like the explanations. For

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

I don't approach this as getting solved in one multipolygon. I might use two multipolygons, one tagged wetland=bog, another tagged wetland=marsh, both tagged natural=wetland. Add name=* as appropriate. Closed ways (plus other things, with other tags) do overlap (these two seem they should

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Thanks. I appriciate that you say that features are actually missing in this context. The usual way things go when I've tried to discuss these issues in various OSM forums is that it's incredibly hard to get to a consensus that there actually even is a problem at all. I get suggestions to map

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Indeed, place=locality seems to be a dead end, it's been misused quite much and there's talks about removing it from OSM-Carto, and you can't render good maps from it, so it's technically a poor concept as well. To render names properly for natural features the renderer needs to know the

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Does the actual wetland have a name, or does the area which the wetland is part of have a name? If the latter is the case, I might just consider using a node with place=locality+name=(name) to tag it. It's typically used to tag "an unpopulated location for which there is no extant feature to

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

To make it clearer, here's a screenshot of the result of a test using this method: https://www.torger.se/anders/downloads/Screenshot_2020-12-12.png OSM-Carto makes one name tag per sub-part instead of just one for the whole which is both undesired and ugly, but I've come to understand that

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

of course all of these could be tagged as place=locality nodes, but this is a compromise to drop a name, which does not allow to even guess about the extent, shape or orientation. My idea is to collectively curate a parallel dataset which can be used in addition. Just draw the thing roughly

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

sent from a phone > On 12. Dec 2020, at 12:26, Anders Torger wrote: > > In the wetland case as described, there is no parent relation at all. The > only thing that ties them together is implicitly by sharing borders and > having the same name tag. It seems to me that an "official" way to

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

So your advice is to actually skip the parent relation object, and thus leave the parts separate and related implicitly just by shared borders and having the same name? Ok, fine by me. I certainly agree with you that data users probably won't turn complex patterns into something meaningful,

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> Anders Torger hat am 12.12.2020 12:23 geschrieben: > > Sorry, I realize I have a followup question. Is this really the right > way? > > There's a difference from the Rhine example. With rivers all the > separate parts are tied together with a parent relation of the type > waterway, and

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Sorry, I realize I have a followup question. Is this really the right way? There's a difference from the Rhine example. With rivers all the separate parts are tied together with a parent relation of the type waterway, and the parts have roles like "main_stream". In the wetland case as

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Sorry, ignore me as it looks like the question had already been answered. When I opened the message, your original question was the only thing there, but when I answered, all the other earlier replies appeared? No idea what's going on there? Guess gmail must be having a bad morning! Thanks

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Does each bog & marsh have it's own name, or are just different surfaces inside one big named wetland? Thanks Graeme PS & please don't get frustrated & give up on trying to make progress! On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 at 02:11, Anders Torger wrote: > Hello, > > I was on this list a while back

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Thanks I'll do it this way then, this actually works and even gets rendered, although with OSM-Carto it becomes a name tag in each separate part so not exactly beautiful, but the data is there. /Anders On 2020-12-11 18:07, Christoph Hormann wrote: Anders Torger hat am 11.12.2020 17:07

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Unfortunately I don't think that is possible. Multipolygons may only contain ways that have either role as inner or as outer. It may not contain other relations (still possible to upload, but not considered right according to the wiki). What should the ways be? We can't make the separate

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Actually, there is no Rijn in Rotterdam. But that does not change the argument. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 11 dec. 2020 om 18:11 heeft Christoph Hormann het > volgende geschreven: > >  > >> Anders Torger hat am 11.12.2020 17:07 geschrieben: >> >> The least bad way I've come up with is to

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Hello Anders, I would recommend creating a multipolygon relation (type=multipolygon) with each of the wetland pieces, and set the name= and appropriate natural= and wetland= tags on the relation. On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:11 AM Anders Torger wrote: > Hello, > > I was on this list a while back

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> Anders Torger hat am 11.12.2020 17:07 geschrieben: > > The least bad way I've come up with is to just name all polygons > belonging to the same wetlands the same, That is widely considered to be the correct way. It is established practice that mapping things like forest, wetland,

[Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Hello, I was on this list a while back expressing some frustration over limitations when tagging nature and thought about getting involved in a process for change, but I came to realize that it's not feasible for me in my current life situation, so I've decided to continue be a normal mapper