Re: [Talk-GB] Adjacent nature reserves

[Warin]

I am reminded of at least one single way I have edited (there could be 
more, it was some time ago)... it is a single way used for;


boundary of 2 states of Australia
boundary of 2 councils
boundary of 2 National Parks - note that these 'National Parks' are 
administered by the individual states and have different rules...


All of these are separate relations... with quite a few shared ways. 
Messy, but done.


The rendering looks good to me.

While you may have 2 nature reserves adjacent they both need to be on 
the map, so they can be individually found. So they should not be 
combined in the data base.


Rendering of boundaries of the same type .. but with less prominence?
Would not be high on my priority list... but doable. The render could 
should them with the same prominence as one single boundary.
Councils and countries usually share boundaries so they would have some 
thought to combining there boundary rendering.

There must be similar things between England/Scotland/Wales...


On 06/06/19 18:12, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

5 Jun 2019, 19:55 by mar...@templot.com:

But on the OSM standard map, the common boundary is shown as a
bold green line, which bears no relation to anything on the ground
and could be misleading for visitors.

Note that maps are not aerial images - there is often significant 
level of abstraction and

especially for borders there is often nothing visible on the ground.

This rendering was used as compromise between several different problem.

Note also that the same styling applies to all nature reserves across 
the world.


Is there a better way to map this?

There are two nature reserves there, right?

If I combine them as a single nature reserve

sounds like tagging for the renderer - 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer


Is there a way to show the common boundary less prominently?

This is on side of renderers. This one has repository at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/
where proposals to improve it or pull requests with code improving it 
may be submitted.


Though again, the same rendering rules are applied globally, and for 
every single one
there are cases where it fails horribly. Improving one specific place 
may have really bad

results elsewhere.

On the data side - I would consider tagging borders on the shared way 
(mapping boundaries

as multipolygons), currently each nature reserve is a separate way.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/694760748#map=17/52.37217/-2.28169

(it would not change rendering, at least on default OSM map)



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Adjacent nature reserves

[Mateusz Konieczny]

5 Jun 2019, 19:55 by mar...@templot.com:

> But on the OSM standard map, the common boundary is shown as a bold green 
> line, which bears no relation to anything on the ground and could be 
> misleading for visitors.
>
Note that maps are not aerial images - there is often significant level of 
abstraction and
especially for borders there is often nothing visible on the ground.

This rendering was used as compromise between several different problem.

Note also that the same styling applies to all nature reserves across the world.

> Is there a better way to map this?
>
There are two nature reserves there, right?

>  If I combine them as a single nature reserve
>
sounds like tagging for the renderer - 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer 


> Is there a way to show the common boundary less prominently?
>
This is on side of renderers. This one has repository at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/ 

where proposals to improve it or pull requests with code improving it may be 
submitted.

Though again, the same rendering rules are applied globally, and for every 
single one
there are cases where it fails horribly. Improving one specific place may have 
really bad 
results elsewhere.

On the data side - I would consider tagging borders on the shared way (mapping 
boundaries
as multipolygons), currently each nature reserve is a separate way.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/694760748#map=17/52.37217/-2.28169

(it would not change rendering, at least on default OSM map)

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb