Hi there,
I want a way of creating an object for an energy generator and then saying
"this is on top of / inside this building object". Here is an example of one
such object:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/35802300
I checked on the wiki page and couldn't see any established or proposed
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Tom Chance wrote:
> Hi there,
> I want a way of creating an object for an energy generator and then saying
> "this is on top of / inside this building object". Here is an example of one
> such object:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/35802300
> I checked o
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>
> Perhaps a site relation? I'm not sure it's necessary; any application
> that needs that information can calculate whether the polygons
> overlap.
>
>
Yes, the topology shows what is "inside" or "outside" the polygon. And you
can use the
Tom Chance wrote:
Hi there,
I want a way of creating an object for an energy generator and then
saying "this is on top of / inside this building object". Here is an
example of one such object:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/35802300
I checked on the wiki page and couldn't see any e
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Sebastian Klein
wrote:
> Isn't it kind of obvious, that a "photovoltaic" type power generator is
> located on top of the building rather than inside or below?
>
> You may assume a basic level of intelligence from the user of the data and
> add only information that
2010/8/29 Pieren :
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II
> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps a site relation? I'm not sure it's necessary; any application
>> that needs that information can calculate whether the polygons
>> overlap.
>>
>
> Yes, the topology shows what is "inside" or "outside" th
On 8/30/10 9:06 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/8/29 Pieren:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II
wrote:
Perhaps a site relation? I'm not sure it's necessary; any application
that needs that information can calculate whether the polygons
overlap.
Yes, the topology shows wha
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
> i'd lean towards site relations being useful because i think that
> the computational complexity of doing lots of polygon intersections
> is being underestimated. yes, for small bounding boxes it's ok,
> but consider if you needed to do it o
2010/8/30 Steve Bennett :
> Yep. Polygon collisions can also be accidental, like when two objects
> from slightly different sources (say one gps, one aerial imagery) are
> near each other.
I'd consider this mapping failure actually. More than believing in
gps- and imagery-precision the mapper sho
2010/8/30 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
>> - "these objects express the same thing as that object but in more
>> detail" (eg, one line representing a pair or more of train lines)
in this actual example you don't need relations but can do as with
streets (lanes-tag). I'm not sure on the best syntax though
* M∡rtin Koppenhoefer [2010-08-30 17:40 +0200]:
> 2010/8/30 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
> >> - "these objects express the same thing as that object but in more
> >> detail" (eg, one line representing a pair or more of train lines)
>
> in this actual example you don't need relations but can do as with
>
On 30 August 2010 14:18, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 8/30/10 9:06 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> +1, but site-relations might still be useful in the context of power
>> generators. There are situations where the single objects do not
>> overlap but are side a side, for example you might have
2010/8/31 Tom Chance :
> Based on this discussion, it seems that the best advice to put on my
> proposal for power generators is:
>
> - use site relations where the power=generator objects don't obviously
> overlap with the buildings they relate to, particularly where you are
> dealing with a clust
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> There is a proposal for a tracks= tag:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Multiple_Tracks
Ok, two points:
1) That's a mechanism for only having a single way, and coding
information about the number of tracks. I'm talking a
2010/9/2 Steve Bennett :
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
>> There is a proposal for a tracks= tag:
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Multiple_Tracks
>
> Ok, two points:
> 1) That's a mechanism for only having a single way, and coding
> information abou
leading to confusion.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] Relation for saying "x is attached to y"?
>From :mailto:stevag...@gmail.com
Date :Thu Sep 02 07:45:41 America/Chicago 2010
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> There is a proposal for a tracks= ta
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:37 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> so you are talking about rendering?
Primarily, yes. But could be useful for other applications. For
example, to do public transport routing, you would want to operate at
the level of "the train line", not at the level of an individual
t
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:59 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> The problem is that, even if you have a tag on the shared way indicating "use
> this only for zoom X or below", and tags on the separate ways saying "use
> this only for zoom Y and above", there are likely to be some rendering
> programs
On 04.09.2010 07:00, Steve Bennett wrote:
Any existing renderer would not render C at all. Any renderer (or
other tool) that added support for railway=train_line, would
presumably also add support for the relation.
As that's right from the applications point of view, keep in mind the
need for
On 04/09/2010 06:53, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:37 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
so you are talking about rendering?
Primarily, yes. But could be useful for other applications. For
example, to do public transport routing, you would want to operate at
the level of "the tra
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
> I'm sure, there has to be a way for renderers to collapse parallel ways to
> one - without explicit tagging in the database.
> The railway example is only one of more examples.
Right, to do this well we'd really need to work out some good us
On 05.09.2010 09:23, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
I'm sure, there has to be a way for renderers to collapse parallel ways to
one - without explicit tagging in the database.
The railway example is only one of more examples.
Right, to do this well
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
>> The signature? What do you mean?
>
> Well - I fear, I used the word with one of meanings it has in German - but
> probably not in English
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signatur_%28Kartographie%29
>
> A "Signatur" - other meanings can be tr
23 matches
Mail list logo
