On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com > wrote:
> 2009/9/21 Anthony <o...@inbox.org>: > > Osmarender does a pretty good job of those bridges: > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=27.95907&lon=-82.53907&zoom=17&layers=0B00FTF > > Notice how it combines the two ways heading south into one bridge even > > without any additional information besides the fact that the two ways are > > close together. > > there are many cases of parallel bridges though, where you don't want > them to render as one because they are two (or more), so being close > cannot be the criteria. > It can if you factor in the width of the ways. If the distance between the ways is equal to the average width of the ways (give or take half a meter), you've got one bridge, not parallel bridges. That wouldn't solve the problem if there's a gap between the ways but one bridge, though. I agree it's better to represent the bridge separately. On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com> wrote: > > 2. if the bridge is independent, the size (width) can be drawn to suit > > What do you mean? If I don't know the width of the bridge, I can't draw it. > If you know the distance between the centers of the ways, you can calculate the minimum width the bridge could possibly be: distance between the centers of the ways times two.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
