Am 23.09.2013 18:48, schrieb Yves:
> Sorry, I meant "osm2pgsql is not used for the slippy map ONLY".
> Thanks for all the feedback :)
Sure, but changing the DEFAULT behaviour to a more strict one while
keeping the old behaviour with a flag should enable anybody to keep the
old behaviour on demand;
Am 24.09.2013 10:12, schrieb Stefan Keller:
> 2013/9/23 Kai Krueger wrote:
>> Indirectly it is a question of tagging schemas.
>
> To me this is actually indirectly a question of a proper area type!
> See e.g. "Towards an Area Datatype for OSM" from Jochen at SOTM
> http://lanyrd.com/2013/sotm/scp
2013/9/23 Kai Krueger wrote:
> Indirectly it is a question of tagging schemas.
To me this is actually indirectly a question of a proper area type!
See e.g. "Towards an Area Datatype for OSM" from Jochen at SOTM
http://lanyrd.com/2013/sotm/scpkrr/
--Stefan
2013/9/23 Kai Krueger
> "Petr Moráve
"Petr Morávek [Xificurk]"-2 wrote
> Anyway, this thread was not started to debate tagging schemes, the
> question I (and others) wanted to discuss here is this:
> Given the data that are currently in the database, how should osm2pgsql
> handle the import to get as much as possible multipolygons rig
Dne 23.9.2013 16:03, Peter Wendorff napsal(a):
> Am 23.09.2013 15:20, schrieb "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]":
>>
>> I propose that:
>> 1) By default the relation and ways are treated separately
>> - relation creates polygon with tags from the relation and ways are
>> processed on their own.
>> 2) If an
Sorry, I meant "osm2pgsql is not used for the slippy map ONLY".
Thanks for all the feedback :)
Yves
--
Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinf
Am 23.09.2013 15:20, schrieb "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]":
>
> I propose that:
> 1) By default the relation and ways are treated separately
> - relation creates polygon with tags from the relation and ways are
> processed on their own.
> 2) If and only if the relation has only type=multipolygon tag
Dne 23.9.2013 11:59, Paul Norman napsal(a):
> Unless the closed way is a member of a multipolygon relation with no other
> tags on the relation - then you'll have a resulting area with a hole. This
> is a very well established means of tagging areas with holes (~22% of
> type=multipolygon relations
Am 23.09.2013 11:59, schrieb Paul Norman:
>> From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com]
>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] osm2pgsql multipolygon parsing
>>
>> it has a different meaning. tags on a closed way are for the whole area
>> inside the way, tags on
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com]
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] osm2pgsql multipolygon parsing
>
> it has a different meaning. tags on a closed way are for the whole area
> inside the way, tags on a mp relation are for the area of the outer
> minus the i
> Am 23/set/2013 um 11:03 schrieb Pieren :
>
> Check cities with tens of thousands buildings. You will have sometime
> the building tag on ways, sometimes on relations. Having the tag
> always on the surrounding way is more consistent and easier to catch
> for everybody, including newcomers.
i
2013/9/23 Pieren
>
> -1
> Check cities with tens of thousands buildings. You will have sometime
> the building tag on ways, sometimes on relations. Having the tag
> always on the surrounding way is more consistent and easier to catch
> for everybody, including newcomers.
>
>
Not if they use iD. I
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
>> The suggestion is to discourage this in all cases and encourage always
>> tagging the relation (this is also straightforward and much easier as "you
>> can do A or B").
> +1
-1
Check cities with tens of thousands buildings. You will have
Am 22.09.2013 11:31, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> 2013/9/22 yvecai
>
>> Of course, it should be accompagnied with a large campaign of
>> multi-polygons fix.
>>
>
>
> I'd suggest to start modifying the recommendations in the wiki:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon
> reads:
> "I
On 22/09/2013 10:03, yvecai wrote:
Of course, it should be accompagnied with a large campaign of
multi-polygons fix.
... and a patch to any editors that don't create multipolygons in this
format. For example, here are three attempts at multipolygons in iD, P2
and JOSM:
http://api06.dev.o
2013/9/22 yvecai
> Of course, it should be accompagnied with a large campaign of
> multi-polygons fix.
>
I'd suggest to start modifying the recommendations in the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon
reads:
"If you have one closed way making up the outer ring and it does not
de
Osm2pgsql is not used for the default map on osm.org.
While the current behaviour in osm2pgsql is OK for consumers, could a
'strict' mode to handle mutipolygons be used on osm.org default map ?
Of course, it should be accompagnied with a large campaign of
multi-polygons fix.
Yves
__
Am 22.09.2013 04:14, schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar:
>
> I agree that this is a good way of tagging multipolygons.
>
> Unfortunately, many people don't tag multipolygons in this way. I've seen
> people add building=yes to an outer way of a building with holes even
> though there's a multipolygon rel
> Am 22/set/2013 um 04:14 schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar :
>
> It's most likely that these people are not familiar with relations and they
> see an outer way with no building=yes tag and decided to "helpfully" tag it.
>
> Because of this, a more complicated interpretation of tags, such as
> Fred
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
> IMHO it's clear:
> - a tag on a way describes that way, if it's a closed way and the tag is
> describing an area, the tag matches the complete area inside that polygon.
> - if a way is outer of a multipolygon and there are tags on the way,
>
IMHO it's clear:
- a tag on a way describes that way, if it's a closed way and the tag is
describing an area, the tag matches the complete area inside that polygon.
- if a way is outer of a multipolygon and there are tags on the way,
these tags nevertheless describe the whole area, including all ho
2013/9/21 Frederik Ramm
> Hi,
>
> > The remaining question is, what should be the correct behavior?
>
> My assumption until now was:
>
> * If a multipolygon is untagged - where "untagged" means that it has no
> tags except a small list (type, source, source:*, note) then it will
> simply receive
Hi,
> The remaining question is, what should be the correct behavior?
My assumption until now was:
* If a multipolygon is untagged - where "untagged" means that it has no
tags except a small list (type, source, source:*, note) then it will
simply receive *all* tags from all (outer) member ways,
Hello,
I've run into some problems with osm2pgsql parsing of multipolygon
relations, so I've opened an issue on github [1]. It turned out that the
behavior was recently changed.
The remaining question is, what should be the correct behavior?
The question is not easy to answer, because there are
24 matches
Mail list logo
