Could we try an example to see whether mappers agree on bay areas ? could you draw the Gulf of Biscay on a map ?
This guy did it : http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-9_Y031ZiZQ/THowBMn81dI/AAAAAAAACi8/inSvDDa1DC4/s1600/Golf+van+Biskaje.jpg I might have extended it a bit further to the west on the Spanish coast... regards m On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:12 PM, moltonel 3x Combo <molto...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29/10/2014, Richard Z. <ricoz....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 05:21:06PM +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > >> On 28/10/2014, Richard Z. <ricoz....@gmail.com> wrote: > > well even if the issues were nonexistent, mapping the area of a bay seems > > to me like mapping an artificially introduced concept for which there is > > very little real world use or recognition otherwise. > > Huh ? Forget about maps and osm for a moment. A bay is "a body of > water mostly surrounded by land". You're "in" a bay, not "at" a bay. > It has a size, it's not a point in space with a buoy marking the spot. > It's an area. > > The fact that a lot of sources have simplified it down to a point is > an entirely different issue. But there's no reason that, with modern > tools and manpower, we can't make a better job than those historical > sources. And remember that when you see a rendered bay label, you > don't actually know wether the source (wether it's some vector data or > an idea in the sailor's brain) was an area or a point to begin with. > > > Also bays with very > > flat or deep geometry will result in disproportionately small areas so > > mappers may feel compelled to do some ugly workarounds if the name of the > > bay isn't shown as expected. > > Disproportionate compared to what ? And fairly flat coastlines are a > good example of cases that are tricky for algorythms, where the human > mapper can probably make a better decision. > > > So I would say > > * if there is some other reason valid to map the bay as area, do it > > pros: > - bays are areas in real life > - it makes geocoding trivial > - it makes knowing which bays to render preferably easy (bigger bays > first) > - it enables representing nested bays > - it is deterministic, as opposed to relying on a heuristic algorythm > cons: > - relations are harder to work with than nodes > - the extent of bays is usually fuzzy; nodes make that fuzzyness obvious > - most of the existing data (osm and potential imports) are nodes > > YMMV, those are reasons enough for me. > > > * something better needs to be invented for hinting the renderer. > > It's not just the renderer, I actually think that the geocoding > usacase is more important. And geocoding requires an area, wether it > is provided in readily-usable form as osm data, or by a > heuristics-based algorythm that infers it from a node. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
