Hi Igor.
But if we're talking about topology, why (as I understand it) are you
trying to force topological stuff in the multipolygon RELATION?
That solves, well... nearly nothing.
You have to do exactly the same work for any topological issues that are
not described by a mp relation, e.g. because they aren't multipolygons,
but distinct buildings, forests, water-surfaces or whatever.
There you have to do exactly what you don't want to do here and where
you want to have further restriction for multipolygon relations.
I would suggest you to work on the progress towards area types to be
part of the future api: discussion, decision and implementation.
I would like to see additional topology introduced: along, beneath, ....
are interesting, but yet difficult to get topological relations for osm
data users.
But: Keep in mind that editing should not become more difficult for
mappers. If topology requires to assemble complex relations that's no
option.
regards
Peter
Am 17.10.2012 12:58, schrieb Igor Brejc:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Peter Wendorff
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
And where's the problem?
The island is part of the area described by the multipolygon, as
every other outer way is, too.
It can be handled exactly the same as long as you don't want to do
special stuff according to topology, but then again topology is
missing for most osm model elements, yet (or: you have to
interpret it from the geometry yourself).
Yes, the key word is topology. Moving beyond the Painter's algorithm
and simple map rendering. Having the ability to do generalization with
topology - polygon simplifications, merging of polygons of similar
landuse, detecting/removing common edges, displacement, amalgamation
etc. All in order to produce more useful export data or vector maps.
That's what I've been doing for the last couple of months.
Igor
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
