Frederik Ramm wrote: > I tend to be against strict rules of any kind but when it comes to > the question of what exactly a complex relation means I think it > would be good to have one definition which every tool writer > should aspire to implement.
I'd agree with your general point, but in the particular case of multipolygons, it seems highly likely that these will be obsoleted by a proper area type in API 0.7. The existing multipolygon type also seems to me like a slightly uncomfortable bodge (albeit a necessary one at present) in that relations are otherwise intended for metadata, not geometry. So for the tools I contribute to, principally P2 and an upcoming Ruby PDF renderer, I've taken a decision not to spend time on anything more than rudimentary multipolygon support (one outer, tags on outer way), rather than spending a month coding all-singing-all-dancing support and then have to rewrite it when the area tag comes along. YMalmost certainlyV. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/osm2pgsql-and-only-named-multipolygons-tp6858105p6858205.html Sent from the Developer Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev