Am 16.09.2014 15:59, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:> > 2014-09-16 15:32 GMT+02:00 Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com > <mailto:dave...@madasafish.com>>: > > I find it surprising something as arbitrary as size is used as the > defining factor. Comparing actual tags would surely make more sense. > > > > well, size surely has some correlation with importance. For practical > reasons it is generally working quite well to have first render the > bigger stuff and then render the smaller stuff on top, because it leads > typically to less covering. > > In this particular case more detailed mapping of the tree areas could > solve it, e.g. split the wood object at the cutting roads and waterways, > but admittedly in this case by looking at the bing aerial imagery it > seems indeed to be a continuity of trees on both sides of these.
No, we need a solution which allows overlaps and still renders the differences. One possible solution are pictographs or not solid by striped rendering. Once landcover comes in play we have the next overlap. And we still have the problem with building=roof/yes + layer > 0 not been rendered on top of highway=* and area=yes, even if the size is smaller. cu colliar
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
