On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:23:40 Janko Mihelić wrote: > 2013/3/26 Andrew Errington <erringt...@gmail.com> > > > Yup, it looks fine. > > > > With or without a rectangle is ok. > > What about traffic lights? Is it necessary to see them behind the label? > > Here you can see Google doesn't hide traffic lights: > http://goo.gl/maps/BgxjN > > And the rectangle makes the junction label different from other labels, so > you know what they represent.
I think this is a rendering issue. If the data indicates that there is a name for this junction *and* there are traffic lights then the renderer can render a label, a traffic light icon, or both (or nothing). It comes down to to the capabilities of the renderer, and the person who decides what's important to render. I like the rectangle around the label. I think this discussion is about two things: 1) How do we record the fact that a junction has a name? 2) If the junction is named, can OSM Mapnik show a nice label? For 1), I think the simple method stated in the wiki (junction=yes) is good enough. (or any value of junction=*). I also think that a relation is good enough for the case where a named junction covers a large area with many possible transition points. For 2) I would appreciate it if OSM Mapnik would show a label if the name was properly recorded. I realise that it's easy to make such a request, but that someone somewhere has to do some work to make it happen. There may be other renderers that *do* show a label for a named junction right now, but I don't know what they are. Best wishes, Andrew _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
