On Friday 16 November 2018, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > To answer Christoph's question about Chickaloon Bay and the node for > the same bay, I simply forgot to delete the redundant node after I > finished. Interestingly, the label for the new multipolygon fell only > slightly to the east of the node so its placement was fairly > accurate. However, in order to see the name on that node, one must > zoom in so far that you have no idea whatsoever of the physical > extent of the actual object. I know, that's a rendering issue. Still, > the reason many of us enjoy mapping is so we can see the results of > our labors somehow, preferably on a map, so it's a powerful incentive > to do things in such a way that results in visualization. There is an > enduring tension in the OSM world that we're always seeking to > balance and this discussion is largely about where that balance lies.
Yes, as already said i understand that and this is why i do not primarily blame you or other mappers for using non-verifiable drawings to map bays and straits but Daniel for incentivizing that for ultimately selfish reasons. As a data user i am relatively relaxed on this because it is not a big problem to reduce all these polygon drawings to a node before i use the data. But i would not want to map or do data maintainance in an area with such drawings. I see this as a problem of pollution control. Not to litter the environment, not to pollute the air just because it is convenient. > Also, sorry, I cannot see how representing a strait the size and > importance of the Shelikof Strait (every Alaskan knows about this > famous water passage) with a single way could work. A way is totally > inadequate for such a task. Maybe that trick would work for a narrow > strait that resembles a fjord but not for one as large as this one. Yes, i completely understand how this seems this way but i also know that this is due to you not realizing how fairly easily you can computationally assess the shape and the size of the street from a single properly placed node. I will keep this case in mind for the future as a good example to illustrate that. Note the current node: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5999961722 is of course not suitably placed. Correct position would be around here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=57.9877&mlon=-154.0407#map=9/57.9877/-154.0407 -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
