Cursed Ajaccio Gulf

Thank you for your great patience!
And this possibility: ?

As an aside, I’m really surprised that renders at all - hats off to the OSM Carto people! :slight_smile:

Well, it’s an interesting experiment but of course it wouldn’t work at all for a long narrow bay like a fjord.

I hope this conversation has been helpful. Good luck and keep mapping!


Thank you all :slight_smile:
Put into practice, critics welcome :

I don’t recommend this approach. I’m sure you will draw criticism from other mappers as well.

What amazes me is that the name of the gulf renders so large and appears in the same place as the other one. I suspect that’s because the rendering hasn’t yet “caught up” with your recent edit.

I strongly recommend using a node to represent the Golfe d’Ajaccio.

Thank you for this clarification.
My concern is only to liberate the basic notion of “natural = coastline”. I can thus focus on my project which includes to correct the coastline reality. For this, a simple node also suits.

I tried with this approach to keep the drawing of the border of the Gulf and a significant rendering. These are concerns that have been expressed. Lets at least a few days to touch the rendering and hear the reactions. Afterwards, switching to a single node if this is the consensus to be respected will be a formality. This is not binding.

I suggest mapping a way across the water marking the outer bounds of the bay, tagged with natural=bay and also a node tagged with natural=bay, name,etc in the most suitable location within the bay.
This method defines the boundaries of any bays simply without tangling with the coastline and gives a reasonable label location.

Double advantage: it’s cognitivement relevant and if the mad Guru removes the border line, there will remain a (very small) trace for the archaeologists :wink:
For the exterior path I preferred to conceptualize it in two nodes.

Not sure, but adding both way and node seems to break the “one feature, one element rule”.

Maybe you can solve this if you put the way (role “outer”) and the node (role “label”) in a “bay” relation, like with admin boundaries.

Anyway, the natural=bay wiki says about rendering:

TY. I suppressed the isolated node, keeping the two nodes line.

Is it reasonable:
Should I feed this monster with all the islets I create?

I noticed, some of the islands in that bay, the ones that do render properly, are mapped doubly; one way as natural=coastline, and an overlapping way tagged natural=bare_rock

Like AlaskaDave said, it is much more likely that the renderer hasn’t yet caught up with the change. I am pretty sure no one of the OSM carto team developed a rendering that can deal with a line object like this:, so I think we will see the bay’s name disappear soon…

Agree with AlaskaDave here. Either put a node there for the bay, instead of this useless line object, or properly learn how to use JOSM and how to work with multipolygons, because that seems to be your main issue, not the fact that there is a bay here. The title of this thread already speaks volumes. Instead of cursing the bay object, it is clear indication you need to update your JOSM skills to be able to deal with these objects.

That would also help in the risk of you breaking the coastline object inadvertently.

If you are unwilling to do that, then again, use a node instead if you feel obliged to make changes, but it will not convey the same information as a polygon in relation to the bay’s size, making a cartographically sound labeling in terms of font size hard.

1 Like

In order to not overlap ways I tag this kind of things with the coastline in the way and the bare rock in a multipolygon.

1 Like