On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Adam Schreiber wrote:
Not if you consider that roads are to be marked down their center line
and typically the parking area ends to the outside of the center line
of the road demarking their boundary.
An argument
Hi,
On 25.09.2008, at 12:03, Andy Allan wrote:
And it means that areas preserve their actual dimensions
instead of growing outwards beyond their actual boundary - an
increasingly proportionately large problem as we add ever smaller
details to OSM.
But is that not a problem for roads as well?
Andy quoted Frederik:
An argument that I would accept if we'd be tagging roads as
areas. But
as long as we tag roads as idealized zero-width lines which
any
renderer will draw as it sees fit, it does not make a lot of
sense to
let the area end precisely at the roadside.
And added:
Hi,
On 25.09.2008, at 12:23, Ed Loach wrote:
I would agree, and if Frederik does want to tag roads as areas he
could use the width= and/or est_width= tags, although it is unlikely
that the renderers use them, assuming that the widths they currently
render are based on just the highway= value
This is an interesting topic which is well worth discussion, but to return
to the original question for a moment. The issue is that mapnik is not
capable of rendering a way that is both a path and an area. The example
given was highway=service, amenity=parking.
Regardless of whether people are
Frederik Ramm escribió:
Hi,
On 25.09.2008, at 12:23, Ed Loach wrote:
I would agree, and if Frederik does want to tag roads as areas he
could use the width= and/or est_width= tags, although it is unlikely
that the renderers use them, assuming that the widths they currently
render are based
80n wrote:
This is an interesting topic which is well worth discussion, but to
return to the original question for a moment. The issue is that
mapnik is not capable of rendering a way that is both a path and an
area. The example given was highway=service, amenity=parking.
[...]
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
80n wrote:
This is an interesting topic which is well worth discussion, but to
return to the original question for a moment. The issue is that
mapnik is not capable of rendering a way that is both a path and an
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:47 PM, 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suggesting that the data be changed to accommodate the deficiency of a
particular renderer is very much a case of mapping for the renderer. This
is a principle that is important to uphold. Fix the renderer not the data.
It's
80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regardless of whether people are centerlineists or not, there are
always going to be mappers who will tag ways this way. We have a
free form tagging scheme so we cannot prohibit such things. For
example, a way tagged as highway=waterway, power=line (two linear
Hi,
On 25.09.2008, at 12:53, sergio sevillano wrote:
with JOSM i can zoom and put very close independent paths not
touching each other making them practicaly coincident.
Exactly... and then someone comes along and makes the road a bit more
accurate, and you force him to do the job twice OR
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Christoph Boehme [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regardless of whether people are centerlineists or not, there are
always going to be mappers who will tag ways this way. We have a
free form tagging scheme so we cannot prohibit such
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:47 AM, 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is an interesting topic which is well worth discussion, but to return
to the original question for a moment. The issue is that mapnik is not
capable of rendering a way that is both a path and an area. The example
given was
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:47 PM, 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a distinction that will be lost on most casual mappers. Its
complicated enough for them already. You are arguing for a scheme where
seemingly arbitrary combinations of tags can or cannot be combined on one
osm-object.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On 25.09.2008, at 12:53, sergio sevillano wrote:
with JOSM i can zoom and put very close independent paths not
touching each other making them practicaly coincident.
This technique implies an accuracy that is
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:47 AM, 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is an interesting topic which is well worth discussion, but to
return
to the original question for a moment. The issue is that mapnik is not
capable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
80n wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On 25.09.2008, at 12:53, sergio sevillano wrote:
with JOSM i can zoom and put very close independent paths not
touching each other making them practicaly
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On 25.09.2008, at 12:03, Andy Allan wrote:
And it means that areas preserve their actual dimensions
instead of growing outwards beyond their actual boundary - an
increasingly proportionately large problem as we add
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 1:22 PM, 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Dave Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:47 AM, 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is an interesting topic which is well worth discussion, but to
return
to the original
Greetings,
The argument that we map street center lines and add width= or
est_width= tags to give them an area is persuasive. Probably because
that's what I already believed. ;-) We can also estimate width by
using the highway= or lanes= tags.
Mapping a car park to its edge (sidewalk, curb
My main problem with mapping areas to the centre line (I'm not really
counting landuse here, its possibly an exception) is the farcical
situations to which it leads. The buildings example is the best: it's
not uncommon at all to have a road abutted on both sides by buildings.
If we map them
Hello all,
I have mapped a car park which has a road all round it (is part of the
car park and defines its boundaries), and several parking aisles
crossing it.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.811653lon=-1.626954zoom=18layers=B000FFF
The boundary road is marked
highway=service
Mapnik doesn't recognise dual tags. In this case the area tag takes
precedence. Separate polygon is the way to get it to show.
Cheers
STEVE
Steve Chilton, Learning Support Fellow
Manager of e-Learning Academic Development
Centre for Learning and Quality Enhancement
Middlesex University
Thanks folks,
Fixed with separate surrounding area.
regards,
LT
2008/9/24 Steve Chilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Mapnik doesn't recognise dual tags. In this case the area tag takes
precedence. Separate polygon is the way to get it to show.
Cheers
STEVE
Steve Chilton, Learning Support Fellow
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Steve Chilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Mapnik doesn't recognise dual tags. In this case the area tag takes
precedence. Separate polygon is the way to get it to show.
Isn't that tagging for the renderer?
Cheers
STEVE
Steve Chilton, Learning Support
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:07 PM, 80n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Steve Chilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Mapnik doesn't recognise dual tags. In this case the area tag takes
precedence. Separate polygon is the way to get it to show.
Isn't that tagging for the
26 matches
Mail list logo
