Group relations have been proposed ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Group_Relation) in the past. One has been used to group the Great Lakes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1124369
I'm tempted to use type=group relations to group the Bisby Lakes, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/198380582, the Cedar Lakes (First, Second, Third and Fourth are all conflated in OSM) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3586769, the Essex Chain of Lakes https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3696734, the Fulton Chain of Lakes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/195478, and similar groupings, because the unimaginative names of the individual lakes are, to say the least, uninformative. If enough people use type=group, the renderers, Nominatim, and other data consumers will eventually catch up, I suppose. Note that US Geologic Survey topo maps have historically indicated the chain names as well as the lake names, so the USGS cartographers have considered both names to be significant: https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=43.87654,-74.23618&z=14&b=t&o=r&n=0.25 shows the Essex Chain and https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=43.7229,-74.90313&z=14&b=t&o=r&n=0.25 shows the foot of the Fulton Chain, for instance. I haven't tried to push this issue, because the rendering world is truly not ready for it. One of these years I'm going to want to try my hand at implementing a renderer that incorporates some of the ideas of https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/88830694/labellingFramework.pdf and http://geoinformatics.ntua.gr/courses/admcarto/lecture_notes/name_placement/bibliography/barrault_2001.pdf for labeling elongated areas and groups (such as archipelagoes, mountain ranges, broad rivers, and chains of lakes). Don't expect it any time soon. So many projects, so little time... On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 10:24 AM SelfishSeahorse <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 13:55, SelfishSeahorse <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > A very similar problem are parts of lakes by the way, e.g. look at > this map of the lake of Constance, showing names for parts of the lake: > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodensee#/media/File:Bodensee_satellit%2Btext.png > > > (or maybe the "lake" in this case is a group of lakes as well). > > > > This problem could be solved with *:part=* areas (in this example > > natural:part=lake), analogous to building:part=*. > > PS: Sorry, i meant natural:part=water (+ water=lake). > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
