A gravel area tag/tagging convention is needed. One use I’ve seen is highways in particular seem to have gravel separator between the actual road and usually grass. Standardizing a area (a way) with just the surface=gravel tag could work.
El El vie, nov. 6, 2020 a la(s) 12:34, Anders Torger <and...@torger.se> escribió: > Hello everyone, newcomer here! > > I've been a casual contributing mapper for a couple of years here in > Sweden. Only since 2018 :-O, I thought it was longer, and during this > time I've made 1700 edits mostly using iD, just started using JOSM for > some more complex edits. Anyway, I recently tried to up my game to make > really high quality and "complete" maps in the areas I live. I have a > lot of local knowledge combined with very high quality government maps > (already preloaded into the editor, not the highest resolution version, > but enough for most aspects) together with satellite images which today > has much better alignment than a few years ago (still government maps > are best on that). So good reference is there too, I have all I need to > make a good job. > > My areas are bit more rural, more nature. Villages, hamlets and towns. > Nature is prominent and naming nature is important, many old names but > still in active use by forestry, outdoor people, hunters and locals. > When mapping these, I immediately run into basic issues that I'm > surprised that they aren't solved already. > > I'm not 100% sure if this mailing list is the right venue for discussing > these issues. OSM as a community is quite hard to grasp for a newcomer > and I have been sent to different places, but now I'm here. > > Anyway, my observations (mostly using the default openstreetmap-carto > style) : > > ** Tagging bays and straits as areas work great, as the renderer gets > and idea how prominent it is and it can make proper text sizing and they > can be seen even if zoomed out if the area is large. Lots of our lakes, > even quite small ones have sub-naming, and with these features I can > make really good mapping of this. > > ** Tagging and naming areas on ground does not seem to be developed much > at all, unfortunately. > > ** There is natural=peninsula so one can tag and name an area of varying > size, but it doesn't seem to render (unless I've made some mistake...) > > ** I can't make an area to name hills or slopes, which is very common > around here (natural=hill would be nice and is more generic than slope). > There's peak, but that's only for point for the highest peak with > elevation, so it doesn't the purpose here. > > ** Valleys can only be tagged as ways, but here it would make much more > sense to make an area, as sizes of these valleys vary a lot, and the > renderer need to know how large this is (not just how long) to make sane > renders. > > ** Due to limitations in area-based name tagging the map looks empty > just when zoomed out a little, as names disappear almost directly, so > despite detailed mapping and tagging the overview map is not as useful > as it could be. While the renderer can and does make proper decisions of > prominence for bays and strait made as areas, point-based natural names > often yield strange and misleading maps as vastly different sized areas > have just a point for the name and no other differentiator, there's no > way the renderer can make an appropriate render decision as the data is > not there. > > ** Support for group naming is limited. It's here very common that > several smaller islands are named as a group, smaller ponds are named as > a group etc, without having individual names. There are tags for that > (group/cluster), but not rendered. The best alternative today is to make > it a named multipolygon, but only few renderers make the expected > result, ie one name rather than only in one subarea or duplicated in all > areas (which looks strange as the name is often in plural form, or it > doesn't show up at all if each subarea is small). > > ** Another fairly common group naming concept is when each feature has > its own name, but the group of features have also a separate collective > name. Maps supporting this concept will thus when you zoom out not show > the individual names but only the group name. The group/cluster tag > would perhaps be the way to do this, but as far as I know no current > style supports it. > > ** As a minor note, I've noted there is no good tag for anonymous gravel > yards, which there are a lot of here. Abandoned quarry is the closest, > but still not right, as only some actually were gravel/sand pits to > start with. Those gravel yards are often leftovers from construction > work or forestry often even locals don't exactly know when or why they > were made. Today they are used mainly used for parking by people being > out in nature, but they are not maintained so they are not exactly > parking lots either. > > The central issue here is about naming though, support for group naming > and the ability to name areas on land which just like bays and straits > have fuzzy borders (there is no exact start or end of a hill or a > valley). There is no question about it that the naming I mentioned above > exist plentiful at least in Sweden, and it's used in Swedish > general-purpose maps, it's not some special odd feature. > > To me, which know very little about OSM and its history, but am used to > using maps both in digital and paper form, see the ability to name > groups, and the ability to differentiate size of natural features as > very basic functions required to produce high quality cartography. But > OSM is a 16 year old project and still doesn't have widespread support > for these basic features, essentially making high quality cartography an > impossibility at least in this part of the world. This is strange, there > must be something else going on. Maybe it's technically difficult to > implement. Maybe it's technically difficult to make any new things at > all as the database has grown. Maybe it's hard to get acceptance for new > features as the community has grown large and diverse. Maybe OSM is not > intended for mapping natural features. Maybe the ability to show > anything useful other than maximally zoomed in isn't a priority. Maybe > rural areas isn't important to OSM. I don't know. > > Oh, while these cartography issues indeed are more prominent in rural > areas, we do have named areas in denser places in Sweden too like in and > around Stockholm, it just doesn't hurt as much if you leave out these > names as there are much other things to navigate by. > > Anyway, I'm not really prepared to fight or self-tag 100000 of these > objects just to try and see if these features might be accepted some > years from now. I'm basically just checking out the status here to see > if OSM and I has a future together :-). For my own mapping needs I don't > absolutely need OSM, I can choose to work with the government data > instead as much of that has been publically available since 2015. It's > however nice to be able to contribute to something that is globally > available with an open license, but great cartography is also important > to me. I know I will get that from the government data. With OSM it > seems... ehh... complicated. I'm not really prepared to significantly > increase my mapping effort (Sweden in OSM is still too a large extent > unmapped or poorly mapped) if despite exact and fully detailed > contributions there will still be sub-standard maps coming out of it. > > /Anders Torger > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Thanks, Seth
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
