Hi, > Indeed. > > That's why I think it needs the Mapnik approach in Osmarender, if this > detection is indeed what Mapnik is doing.
I think Mapnik has some kind of "collision avoidance" that possibly springs in here; it doesn't explicitly recognize that there are two symbols meaning the same so one of them is redundant, it just recognizes there are two symbols vying for space and only one gets through. I think 80n has implemented something crudely similar in Osmarender that he uses for collision avoidance in lowzoom tile labels (I say crudely because as far as I remember it doesn't actually know how many pixels the elements use and whether they'll clash or not, it just makes sure they are placed at least "n" lat/lon units apart). That mechanism could perhaps be used for symbol collision avoidance, although I have a feeling that it could be expensive in terms of CPU power if you're working with large datasets. > 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. Come on David, it happens all the time. You should be thankful that we haven't set up a new API over night that's incompatible with yesterday's! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33' _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
