-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dave Stubbs wrote: | On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Robert (Jamie) Munro | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: |> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |> Hash: SHA1 |> |> |> Tom Hughes wrote: |> | In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |> | David Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: |> | |> |> Unfortunately removing the related node isn't going to work, because |> |> Mapnik won't then render parking symbols. And it is a lot of work to do |> |> that. |> | |> | I believe it will - as far as I know mapnik has rendered those |> | symbols for parking areas for some time. |> | |> |> Since we have contradictory behaviour in the two renderers we can't |> |> resolve this automatically unless osmarender can look and see on the fly |> |> if there is a P node inside the area it is trying to do one for |> |> automatically. |> | |> | I believe it is fundamentally wrong to add nodes which duplicate |> | areas, although I know it is quite common. |> |> I agree with this wholeheartedly. 1 item on the ground should be 1 item |> in the database. What no one else has suggested is that if you really |> need to put something in the DB twice, then at least use a relationship |> to link the DB objects together. |> |> I expect that someone with PostGIS knowledge can construct a query to |> quickly identify all the parking nodes inside parking areas and produce |> a list. I'm sure that many of us could write a perl or python script to |> take this list and delete or relate the nodes. |> | | As of the last planet there are 5881 such nodes. Interestingly there | are one or two car parks with two or three nodes in them. | My hugely overcomplicated postgis query could delete these for mapnik | in about 30 seconds if it was important to do so.
Can we have a vote on what to do next? Options: 1. Delete the nodes inside areas, make sure the areas are set access=public and any tagging (e.g. car park name) is copied across. 2. Add a relationship between car park nodes and the area they are in and do nothing else. 3. Add a relationship between car park nodes and the area they are in and change the tagging of the node somehow. On that list, my vote would be, in order of preference, 1,3,2 I've made a wiki page to collect votes, if people think that's a good idea. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Car_park Robert (Jamie) Munro -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHws+Az+aYVHdncI0RAi3yAKDiRd9b+E4eoL98IiStYDER/Y9ZoQCg52LT nNIAMwX8fhKXELyek30PIvU= =qZVA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
