On 16/09/2014 14:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
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.
This, IMO, is lazy rendering & should be discouraged. To allow the smaller stuff to display is one of the reason mutli-polygons were developed. Refer also to the layer tag which is disappointingly under used by renderers.
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.
That's mapping incorrectly to suit the renderer &, for obvious reasons, should be criticized.
Cheers Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
