Hi, On 15.11.2018 12:08, Christoph Hormann wrote: > I think it is good you bring this up because many mappers have been > doing exactly that without asking - See for example: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/548210592 > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/544856564
Frankly, while I share your overall criticism of 'polygons is universally the preferred way of mapping no matter if verifiable or not' and 'way_area equals cartographic importance', I recently found that someone had added a huge natural=bay relation for the Bay of Bothnia, meticuously including every coastline way. I deleted it here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/63455985 but not without attracting questions as you can see, and I fear that with osm-carto as it is, this object will rise from the dead sooner or later. I still think that it is ridiculous to slap a ton of multipolygons onto the coastlines (since, as I write in that discussion, many bits of water are actually part of various bays of different scales), and a coarse "labelling polygon" like the one discussed here would seem to me to do *less* harm. > Long story short: My suggestion is and has always been to map bays with > nodes in those cases where this - together with the coastline - > perfectly documents the verifiable information available on the > geometry of the bay. Agree on the node idea, but it would have to include some size signifier (and I think someone recently tried to add a "sqm" tag to water body nodes for that purpose which I also criticised...). I don't think you are recommending a relation that includes the actual coastline and the label node, but if you do then I am against that because I don't want every coastline to be part of 10 relations in the end. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
