On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 15:47, Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonew...@gmail.com> wrote:
The current data model works just fine for fuzzy areas: it requires a > polygon combined with tagging that indicates that the area is "fuzzy". > Since the current data model allows both polygons and tags, fuzzy areas > could be mapped just fine from a technical standpoint. > I assume that there is a technical limitation on the number of nodes in such a polygon. A limitation that may apply to any or all of editors, database tables and renderers. There may be some technical workarounds, there may not be. > "Whether we want fuzzy areas" > To an extent, everything we map is fuzzy, in that there is always imprecision. Aerial imagery may be offset. Roads may pass through woods giving little or no visual indication. GPS traces have errors and require many traces to achieve good precision. Everything we map is fuzzy in the sense that it is imprecise but we live with that and understand that the map is an approximation that we may be able to improve upon at a subsequent date. The dislike of fuzziness here appears to centre around verifiability. We don't want edit wars over the extent of a boundary for which no definitive answer can ever be given. We want rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty. I'm not sure that a fuzzy tag will resolve that problem. The precise boundary of a wetland doesn't matter too much and a few tens of metres either way isn't a problem; when it comes to "The Alps" that is a different matter. Simply tagging an area as fuzzy doesn't mean another mapper won't disagree with your polygon and edit it. > The statement that fuzzy polygons is "damaging" is an argument not based > in fact. It is not damaging to me to have building outlines, which I do > not care about. I can simply ignore them. Likewise, fuzzy areas cause no > damage to people that do not care about fuzzy areas, provided that there is > tagging that distinguishes them from non-fuzzy areas. > The problem is the edit wars that may arise. Not a technical issue but a behavioural one. > Further, since we have free tagging, there is nothing preventing mappers > (especially ones not party to these conversations) from adding additional > fuzzy areas to the database, mapped with some invented scheme, and > potentially even creating data consumers to consume such invented tagging. > Many tagging schemes in OSM have arisen in this manner. > And there is the deeper problem. People will do it anyway. And possibly have their additions reverted by the DWG. Repeatedly. In the short term, that may work. In the longer term, "any tag you want" may win. You can't turn back the tide but, with barriers you can divert it. If we don't have fuzzy areas, people will abuse place=locality and other tags to get labels rendered. If we do have fuzzy areas then renderers can calculate label placement, label size, and which zoom levels the label appears at. Fuzzy areas also mean we have meaningful tagging rather than abused tagging, which makes searching for such areas simpler. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
