* James Mast <rickmastfa...@hotmail.com> [2013-06-22 07:22 -0400]:
> I do hope that the render will avoid using the Super relations.
My rendering doesn't use super relations (mostly[0]), because it
doesn't need to; the per-state relations contain all of the tags
needed for it to get the right shields.
> the segment of I-26 between I-240 and Exit #9 is still considered to
> be a "Future" Interstate and it is posted as such with "FUTURE" tabs
> above all I-26 shields on that segment (and missing the word
> "Interstate" in the shields itself.
Would it be worthwhile to declare a separate network for these
(US:I:Future seems natural) and give them their own relations? If
there are signs on the ground, I could see about putting images in my
rendering for them.
[0] At lower zoom levels the rendering uses the osm2pgsql route
relation geometries for overview rendering of two-digit Interstate
shields, which might end up using super relations, if osm2pgsql
generates geometries from them, but that's a fairly minor part of
the rendering and only applies from zoom 7 to zoom 9.
--
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
<kceee^> I hate users
<knghtbrd> you sound like a sysadmin already!
-- seen on #debian
---- --- --
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
