Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove rendering of natural=bay areas #199

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Sep 30, 2013

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@pnorman
Copy link
Collaborator

commented Sep 30, 2013

Fixes #164

Any natural=bay ways I checked were on top of water anyways.

Remove rendering of natural=bay areas
Fixes #164

Any natural=bay ways I checked were on top of water anyways.

gravitystorm added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 30, 2013

Merge pull request #199 from pnorman/bay
Remove rendering of natural=bay areas

@gravitystorm gravitystorm merged commit bba0260 into gravitystorm:master Sep 30, 2013

@vincentdephily

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Nov 13, 2013

Here is a counter-example.

Should the land polygon be modified to not include the bay ? I know it makes sense, but I dont want to tag for the renderer either.

Example was spoted at random, I wasn't looking for one and others may exist. It would be great to have a way to find "bay over land" systematically.

@dieterdreist

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Nov 13, 2013

Am 13/nov/2013 um 19:21 schrieb vincentdephily notifications@github.com:

Should the land polygon be modified to not include the bay ?

according to Wikipedia a bay is a large body of water and our wiki definition explicitly links to WP for bay, so it seems obvious to exclude the land.

cheers,
Martin

@vincentdephily

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Nov 14, 2013

according to Wikipedia a bay is a large body of water and our wiki definition explicitly links to WP for bay, so it seems obvious to exclude the land.

Except that all (?) other osm water features can be drawn over land without having to carve a hole in the land polygon. In that sense, natural=bay is an exception.

Anyway, opening the land polygon is easy enough in the case of bays. Will do that, sorry for the noise.

@gravitystorm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

commented Nov 14, 2013

No, it's a legitimate problem. The majority of water-related area tagging indicates that the area is covered by water (e.g. natural=water, landuse=reservoir and natural=coastline). With natural=bay we've now assumed that the area will also be overlapped by another water-type area, and that you shouldn't expect this particular water area to get a blue fill alone. This 'overlapping' is an unusual assumption in OSM and warrants extra scrutiny.

However, having thought it through a bit more, I'm still happy with the decision. A bay is never the entirety of a water feature - it's always part of something bigger (a lake, an ocean, etc). Since it is an additional level of detail, I'm happy to say that it should require another water-body to cover the same area too, rather than e.g. making a lake area smaller and adding a bay area to fill in the gap.

So by that reasoning, there's no need to have a colour-fill for natural=bay, and any bay should require some other overlapping water feature to define whether it's a lake, ocean etc.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.