On 2020-12-14 15:22, Christoph Hormann wrote:
Anders Torger <[email protected]> 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 same name
tags. Names of physical geography features in OSM are - as explained
- local names. A polygon tagged natural=wood + name=foo means that
this is an stretch of land covered with trees that locally is referred
to with the name 'foo'. If you took a walk on a route that crosses
such polygon you can correctly say that today's hike took you through
'foo'. However if your walk crossed five natural=wood polygons with
name=foo you *cannot* say based on this that your walk took you
through five 'foo' or through five parts of 'foo'. The splitting of
the wood into five polygons is part of the data model we use, it does
not represent any 'five-ness' is the verifiable reality.
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 done, also long-term? Also note that the tags do
differ, otherwise it would be a single multipolygon, it's both
wetland=bog and wetland=marsh.
Why have I got the recommendation, by no lesser than Frederik Ramm
(which I afterwards have figured out is a Geofabrik guy so he's probably
pretty influential), to NOT split forests, "one feature should be one
polygon":
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/77436/is-it-okay-to-split-forest-into-multiple-parts-with-arbitrary-seams
I've got suggestions of 4 - 5 different ways to handle these type of
situations including drawing a new polygon on top of everything and not
just care about JOSM warnings or OSM-Carto results. Probably all these
suggestions coming from OSM contributors much more experienced than I
am. As a newcomer I don't know who anybody is, what authority each of
these posts have. So I think I have some right to be confused... and
indeed I have got suggestion in this list to actually use a relation by
at least one contributor, I don't remember from who now but I guess I
can dig it out from the thread somewhere.
"Verifiable" is tricky in terms of names of natural features as we all
know, as many of those haven't defined borders. [...]
I think you have a pretty fundamental misunderstanding here.
I don't think so based on verifiability definition on the osm wiki,
where borders are indeed discussed. But that's an irrelevant meta
discussion, I'll leave it at that. Fuzzy areas do lack full
verifiability as you cannot get a clear definition "is this inside or
outside the area". As Frederik has pointed out in a different post this
leads to some issues. I hope we can overcome those though.
/Anders
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
