On 16/09/2014 19:55, Paul Norman wrote:
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,
I wouldn't describe size based ordering as 'well defined'.
or the rendered result is undefined and potentially not deterministic.
This can lead to subtle bugs with clipped labels.
Hard to tell from the small graphic, but this doesn't appear to be an
ordering problem.
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.
Please do, I'd be interested to see them.
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
