From: M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
2010/9/10 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2010/9/10 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
Imagine someone would want to calculate all grass area (and everything
would be mapped).
This can be preprocessed (remove building area on the same
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:57 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
the point was: draw an area where it is. If it has holes, put them. A
building in the park doesn't cut a hole in the park, because it is
usually considered to be a building in the park. A building on the
lawn
2010/9/10 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2010/9/10 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
Imagine someone would want to calculate all grass area (and everything
would be mapped).
This can be preprocessed (remove building area on the same layer).
no, you cannot tell whether a building is
My understanding so far was that I need to draw areas and then just on
top of them any buiding that is there.
So you are saying that I need to draw an area, then cut out the hole
for building and then add building there? Or I can just use building
as relation?
looks like a bug, yes. But your pedestrian area also has some
problems: firstly you should make it a multipolygon, because the
church is not a pedestrian area, and secondly the corners seem strange
to me, given that roads are modeled in the center of the road and
areas at their real position.
A vector of a way may be modelled in the center of the road but is
representing the whole road and not just the centerline (just as a
node with highway=crossing represents a crossing of the whole road and
not just a crossing of the centerline), hence allowing an area to
touch the road means that
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:08 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
The buildings below highway-areas is IMHO a mapnik bug, but one by
decision.
I'll nitpick and disagree with you on this one - it's supposed to be a
map, not a top-down-view of the world. So if the roads are, from
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 6:08 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
mapped correctly
.. for Mapnik. Because it works fine with osmarender for instance. This
point will come again and again although it works fine
2010/9/9 Valent Turkovic valent.turko...@gmail.com:
My understanding so far was that I need to draw areas and then just on
top of them any buiding that is there.
So you are saying that I need to draw an area, then cut out the hole
for building and then add building there? Or I can just use
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38103012
Church building is not being shown by Mapnik. Is this some known bug?
--
pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt
blog: http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com
linux, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless, ronjenje, pametne kuće
registered
2010/9/8 Valent Turkovic valent.turko...@gmail.com:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38103012
Church building is not being shown by Mapnik. Is this some known bug?
looks like a bug, yes. But your pedestrian area also has some
problems: firstly you should make it a multipolygon, because
2010/9/8 Martin Simon grenzde...@gmail.com:
2010/9/8 Valent Turkovic valent.turko...@gmail.com:
Ah, so that is why. But in osmarender building are on top of areas,
that seams more logical. Is there some special reason why building are
below area layer?
Well, I don't know, but I think there
On 8 September 2010 12:03, Martin Simon grenzde...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/9/8 Martin Simon grenzde...@gmail.com:
2010/9/8 Valent Turkovic valent.turko...@gmail.com:
Ah, so that is why. But in osmarender building are on top of areas,
that seams more logical. Is there some special reason why
The buildings below highway-areas is IMHO a mapnik bug, but one by
decision. Otherwise streets end under buildings in lower zoom levels
or densely built up areas. IMHO not a problem, but for some people it
was, that's why the rendering order was changed. Beside some edge
cases (bridge-buildings
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 6:08 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
mapped correctly
.. for Mapnik. Because it works fine with osmarender for instance. This
point will come again and again although it works fine when the surrounding
area is a landuse=* or a leisure=* (e.g.
2010/9/8 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 6:08 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
mapped correctly
.. for Mapnik. Because it works fine with osmarender for instance.
just because it works fine in one renderer or the other doesn't mean
it is mapped
On 8 September 2010 18:47, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 6:08 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
mapped correctly
.. for Mapnik. Because it works fine with osmarender for instance. This
point will come again and again although it works fine when
2010/9/8 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com:
Neither order is more correct, you have to use the layer= tag to be
100% correct.
in case of underground buildings you're right, they should have a
layer tag, and probably an underground tag as well. In rendering they
should be rendered above all
18 matches
Mail list logo
