On 23/02/2008 22:04, Sven Grüner wrote: > David Earl schrieb: >> On 23/02/2008 21:29, Andy Robinson wrote: >>> If I create a parking area I really don't want to have to place a node >>> as well so it would be better if the renderer's were clever and >>> ignored any node thats within the area where it has the same tags (eg >>> parking / name). >> Nor do I, but that wasn't the case until this week, so there are many, >> many examples where it has been done manually, that will be a severe >> pain and many hours of work to fix. > > Vice versa. There are also many, many examples of correct tagging > without additional node.
But at least that doesn't screw up the output. > Adding some crude osmarender-tag to them will > also take many hours of work. Indeed. That's why I think it needs the Mapnik approach in Osmarender, if this detection is indeed what Mapnik is doing. > But the people who placed nodes inside areas, because they wanted to see > a shiny icon in the map did so in contradiction to the rule not to map > for the renderers. Again, I agree in principle, But that was how most people did parking areas when I started. So we have a situation where a non-upward-compatible change has been introduced without a conversion from the old system to the new one. Being on a high horse about how it *should* have been done doesn't affect that fact that there is a ghastly mess for historical reasons that needs to be cleared up. We could make it upward compatible by doing what Mapnik does, but I suspect that is hard for osmarender. David _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
