> On Oct 8, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Group relations have been proposed > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Group_Relation > <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 > <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 > <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 > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3586769>, the Essex Chain of Lakes > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3696734 > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3696734>, the Fulton Chain of Lakes: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/195478 > <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 > <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 > <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 > <https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/88830694/labellingFramework.pdf> and > http://geoinformatics.ntua.gr/courses/admcarto/lecture_notes/name_placement/bibliography/barrault_2001.pdf > > <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... >
I had not noticed the existence of the group relation before. Seems to me that it and the controversial site relation have some overlap. For the examples I can think of where I think the site relation works it seems like the group relation would also work. So, at present and lacking counter-examples, it seems to me that one of these two relations should go away. I do not have a strong opinion on which but note that to me “site” implies a relatively small area whilst “group” does not. Cheers!
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
