On 9/17/2014 7:33 AM, Dave F. wrote:
I wouldn't describe size based ordering as 'well defined'.
The polygon table has no column or combination of columns which is
guaranteed to be unique. We only need to have a well defined ordering
within a meta-tile that is consistent across boundaries, not
Am 18.09.2014 00:18, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
Il giorno 17/set/2014, alle ore 22:32, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com ha
scritto:
As an example: If it has a name you'd have two objects of that name, when in
fact there's only one. If someone wanted to find out how many named wood
Il giorno 18/set/2014, alle ore 20:51, colliar colliar4e...@aol.com ha
scritto:
No, the name problem is simply solved with a multipolygon or site
relation if needed. This way we still have one single object.
yes one object, but arguably a wrong one, because the name should in many cases
On 18/09/2014 19:51, colliar wrote:
Am 18.09.2014 00:18, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
Il giorno 17/set/2014, alle ore 22:32, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com ha
scritto:
As an example: If it has a name you'd have two objects of that name, when in
fact there's only one. If someone wanted to
On 16/09/2014 14:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-09-16 15:32 GMT+02:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com
mailto:dave...@madasafish.com:
I find it surprising something as arbitrary as size is used as the
defining factor. Comparing actual tags would surely make more sense.
well,
2014-09-17 10:43 GMT+02:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
On 16/09/2014 14:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-09-16 15:32 GMT+02:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
I find it surprising something as arbitrary as size is used as the
defining factor. Comparing actual tags would surely make
On 16/09/2014 19:55, Paul Norman wrote:
On Sep 16, 2014, at 06:33 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
On 16/09/2014 13:41, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
In general, we render smaller landuse on top of larger landuse.
I find it surprising something as arbitrary as size is used as the
2014-09-17 16:33 GMT+02:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
but I can point to cases where parks should be on top of trees.
Please do, I'd be interested to see them.
I agree that trees should probably always render above parks, especially if
the park area is opaque and obfuscating the
On 17/09/2014 13:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-09-17 10:43 GMT+02:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com
mailto:dave...@madasafish.com:
On 16/09/2014 14:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-09-16 15:32 GMT+02:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com
mailto:dave...@madasafish.com:
Il giorno 17/set/2014, alle ore 22:32, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com ha
scritto:
As an example: If it has a name you'd have two objects of that name, when in
fact there's only one. If someone wanted to find out how many named wood
there are in a city it would return inaccurate data.
Hi
I've mapped an area where a woodland overlaps with a park:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.48959/-2.52536
The new mapnik rendering doesn't display it.
Here's a comparison with old new:
http://bl.ocks.org/tyrasd/raw/6164696/#16.00/51.4890/-2.5267
You'll also notice it previous
This is the place for Standard layer issues:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues
I searched a bit and I didn't find the issue with parks. Try searching
yourself, maybe I just didn't find it.
Janko
2014-09-16 12:25 GMT+02:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
Hi
I've
On 16 September 2014 11:25, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
I've mapped an area where a woodland overlaps with a park:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.48959/-2.52536
The new mapnik rendering doesn't display it.
Here's a comparison with old new:
Ideally we could render little trees on top of the park.
Janko
2014-09-16 14:41 GMT+02:00 Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl:
On 16 September 2014 11:25, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
I've mapped an area where a woodland overlaps with a park:
On 16/09/2014 13:41, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
In general, we render smaller landuse on top of larger landuse.
I find it surprising something as arbitrary as size is used as the
defining factor. Comparing actual tags would surely make more sense.
That gives sometimes unexpected results if
2014-09-16 15:32 GMT+02:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
I find it surprising something as arbitrary as size is used as the
defining factor. Comparing actual tags would surely make more sense.
well, size surely has some correlation with importance. For practical
reasons it is generally
Am 16.09.2014 15:59, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
2014-09-16 15:32 GMT+02:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com
mailto:dave...@madasafish.com:
I find it surprising something as arbitrary as size is used as the
defining factor. Comparing actual tags would surely make more sense.
well,
On Sep 16, 2014, at 06:33 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
On 16/09/2014 13:41, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
In general, we render smaller landuse on top of larger landuse.
I find it surprising something as arbitrary as size is used as the
defining factor. Comparing actual tags
18 matches
Mail list logo
