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
Merged

Conversation

pnorman
Copy link
Collaborator

@pnorman pnorman commented Sep 30, 2013

Fixes #164

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

Fixes gravitystorm#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
Remove rendering of natural=bay areas
@gravitystorm gravitystorm merged commit bba0260 into gravitystorm:master Sep 30, 2013
@vincentdephily
Copy link

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
Copy link

Am 13/nov/2013 um 19:21 schrieb vincentdephily [email protected]:

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
Copy link

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
Copy link
Owner

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
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Some (larger?) beach relations not rendering
4 participants