On Sep 16, 2014, at 06:33 AM, "Dave F." <dave...@madasafish.com> wrote:
On 16/09/2014 13:41, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> In general, we render smaller landuse on top of larger landuse.
I find it surprising something as arbitrary as size is used as the
defining factor. Comparing actual tags would surely make more sense.
As a recent bug
(https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/950) has shown,
it's important to have *some* well-defined ordering in cases where the ordering
could make a visual distinction, or the rendered result is undefined and
potentially not deterministic. This can lead to subtle bugs with clipped labels.
The two criteria are OSM ID and area. The first is truly arbitrary being a
computer-assigned number, while the second is well-founded and is the standard
way to order within a layer.
What you're more interested in is why are parks and trees both in the same
landuse layer. It would certainly simplify the SQL
(https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/project.yaml#L102)
to split it up into different tags, but the problem is there is no universally
acceptable ordering of tags. You've pointed at a case where it'd be good to
have trees on top of parks, but I can point to cases where parks should be on
top of trees.
There's another layer for overlays like military or nature reserves but without
trying it out, I'm not sure if that'd add clarity. Someone is welcome to try it
out
(https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
