Template talk:Map Features:natural
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I've removed natural=land, as it seems to be consensus now to make islands with multipolygons. Besides, the comment "Layering may also be required." is definitely wrong and encourages abuse of the layer tag.
| natural | land |  
|
Land that exists within another area, such as a lake. (i.e an island). Keep water on the right and land on the left side in relation to sequence of nodes in the Way. Layering may also be required. See Relations/Multipolygon for islands in lakes |  |
--Schuetzm 09:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, most islands are tagged as natural=land. You should have only removed the layering remark. --abunai 16:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Taglist is not optimal
The Taglist is a step back, since the Map rendering is no longer displayed. There are usually areas that can not be displayed. --geozeisig (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, it would be better to use the original template. Chrabros (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- This is not correct, Taglist can display the map rendering in either case, it does not matter if it is an icon or an area. The current lack of rendering is not a fundamental problem, but a lack of data in the infobox, from which Taglists fetches its data. I don't think it makes sense to maintain rendering images at two distinct places, both the infobox and in the Map Features page. The logical thing is to maintain it in the infobox and fetch it on the map features page from the infobox, which is exactly what Taglists does. The solution here is to include the osmcarto-rendering field in the infobox for every feature (note that there might be a delay between the wiki and taglists).Math1985 (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, no need separate image parameters for icons (POIs) or background images (areas): there is already separate parameters to specify the image and its size (small for icons, large for backgrounds)
- Note: you can look at the history (or translated versions) to find the background images, and set them in parameters of individual featue pages (where they are clearly missing, but sometimes shown in an separate section of the article showing several alternatives for various renderers, or showing examples mixed with other surrounding features on a map capture. — Verdy_p (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- This is not correct, Taglist can display the map rendering in either case, it does not matter if it is an icon or an area. The current lack of rendering is not a fundamental problem, but a lack of data in the infobox, from which Taglists fetches its data. I don't think it makes sense to maintain rendering images at two distinct places, both the infobox and in the Map Features page. The logical thing is to maintain it in the infobox and fetch it on the map features page from the infobox, which is exactly what Taglists does. The solution here is to include the osmcarto-rendering field in the infobox for every feature (note that there might be a delay between the wiki and taglists).Math1985 (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)