(forgot to send to list) On Mar 10, 2008, at 19:50, Jon Burgess wrote: > On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 12:14 +0100, Robert Vollmert wrote: >> On Mar 4, 2008, at 22:10, Jon Burgess wrote: >> >>> How about we define this as a new relation type and depreciate the >>> multipolygon type. >> >> Which would take us right back to the beginning of the thread :). > > No.
It does, though: I started by proposing just what you suggested, an alternative relation of type=area_with_holes. This was shot down, possibly because people weren't aware of the amount of legacy data > This may be an appropriate compromise > if you still object to using a new relation type. I don't object to a new relation type. Let's go with type=area_with_holes then, roles outer and inner as before. All members are closed ways, the "inner" ways are contained in the interior of the single "outer" way. The area_with_holes is the interior of the "outer" way minus the interiors of the "inner" ways. The properties of this area are described by the tags on the "outer" way (one might also put tags on the relation here). The orientation of the ways doesn't come in. I'll wait for osm2pgsql and osmarender to support this relation, then convert current multipolygon relations that consist of closed ways only to the new variant. Is anyone willing to do the osmarender part? Cheers Robert _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
