Proposal talk:Label (relation)
I think allowing only one label and one object is unnecessary limitational. We can allow zero labels (area should have no icon) or more labels (big area). The same is for object, for example swimming pool can have two building but only one label. --Jttt 20:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
If I understand the proposal correctly, label node is not suppose to have any tags, all information is taken from object way. Would it make sense to allow tags on label that will overwrite tags from object? It may be useful for example for small area. Area will have full name, but for label will be used shorter name. Or big area with more than one label, but only one label having caption. --Jttt 21:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
What we have and what we need
We have this
without everything- with icon
- with name
- with icon and name
without everything- with icon
- with name
- with icon and name
- with a lot of icons (like forrest)
- with a lot of icons and name
Icon and name are showed "somewhere" in the middle.
We need valide rules
A valid description: which renderer displays which tag with which icon and name in which manner in which zoomlevel.
Individual labeling
After we have got this valide rules, we may discuss about individual specific positioning or yes/no switches for icons and names.
If we do it before, it's an invitation for "tagging for the renderers"...
A useful addition to name=* for longnames, is something like "RenderingName" for shorter labels or no labels:
- RenderingName=*/no
- RenderingIcon=no
--Markus 12:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Why a new relation
I think that it is unnecessary to have the separate "label" relation for many features which are relations themselves (like site, settlements etc). I think the proposal should allow adding label tag to a relation which already has boundary object. If not, than we might even do it more complicated than it is now - there will be some boundary object, than a relation describing the whole thing and than another relation for label. And when the renderer needs to find out the label, it should go to boundary via the area role and than find the relation which holds the name. The proposal should not relay on fact that the area object has a name tag - it can lead to many duplications. --Jakubt 14:03, 8 July 2012 (BST)