On 07/10/2016 13:03, Gregory wrote:
Is the issue/bug reported to Mapnik?
The shared node problem? I don't know. Certainly not by me.
I've become increasingly reluctant to report issues like this. Not
solely to mapnik carto but all data users. But I think that's for a
separate posting.
Is the issue/bug reported to Mapnik?
>From the base of Newcastle "Monument",
Greg.
On Oct 7, 2016 12:02 PM, "Dave F" wrote:
> On 07/10/2016 11:54, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>
>> because it's the only *riverbank* section with a name?
>>
>
> Not true.
>
>
>
>
On 07/10/2016 11:54, Jez Nicholson wrote:
because it's the only *riverbank* section with a name?
Not true.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Fixed
http://osm.org/go/euwo8goAQ?m=
It appears that, for some reason, mapnik render (I think it is just this
one) gets confused when the start/end of a closed polygon shares a node
with another closed polygon. I've moved it & it now renders
Dave F.
On 07/10/2016 11:29, Ian Caldwell wrote:
because it's the only *riverbank* section with a name?the other names
come from the river lines (?)
On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 at 11:29 Ian Caldwell
wrote:
>
> On 7 October 2016 at 11:03, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>
> because it's the only
On 7 October 2016 at 11:03, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> because it's the only section with a name?
The next section to the north also has a name and that is rendered.
Ian
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
because it's the only section with a name?
On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 at 10:57 Ian Caldwell
wrote:
> Just noticed that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/72551464 is not being
> rendered on the standard map. It has not been edited for two years and the
> adjoining
Just noticed that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/72551464 is not being
rendered on the standard map. It has not been edited for two years and the
adjoining riverbanks are being rendered. Anybody know why?
Ian
___
Talk-GB mailing list
8 matches
Mail list logo