Jochen Topf wrote: > Thats sounds rather optimistic to me. As far as I know everybody who > has thought about a proper area type has given up, because nobody > could find a way how it was to be implemented solving all the different > design problems with it.
That sounds rather un-OSM-like to me. :) We've never been dissuaded from solving 95% of the problems just because the remaining 5% are hard. There's some good stuff on 'The Future of Areas' page. I could see either 'areas on nodes' or 'areas on ways' working. But we shouldn't get tied up with an all-singing, all-dancing solution for the 5% (Lake Geneva or the British coastline), if a simple solution exists for the 95% and a coastline-like workaround can be found for the edge cases. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/osm2pgsql-and-only-named-multipolygons-tp6858105p6862551.html Sent from the Developer Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
