>>
>> I have two solutions:
>>
>> 1st: We might add a mkgmap option to disable multipolygon processing for
>> boundaries.
>>
>> 2nd: the multipolygon code should not remove the boundary tags from the
>> singular ways. Additionally the polygons created by the multipolygon
>> code could be tagged with mkgmap:mp_boundary=yes. This tag could be
>> evaluated in the style definition so the style could differ between the
>> polygons created by the mp code and the lines not touched by mp code.
>>
> I think the 2nd solution looks cleaner (or less easy to find out why
> something goes wrong). I just gripe about tags being lost. I think it
> should rather be converted to:
> mkgmap:mp_boundary=${boundary}
> mkgmap:mp_admin-level=${admin-level}I think you misunderstood something. Either all ways composing the boundary polygon and additionally the polygons created by the multipolygon code contain ALL tags (boundary=... admin-level=... name=...). But the polygons created by the mp code are additionally tagged with mkgmap:mp_boundary=yes. I don't mind how the tag handling should be. Maybe the style guys tells us what they like most. Nearly everything should be possible. WanMil > > in order not to loose the importance. As I'm not well informed about > naming of boundaries, care should be taken not to loose the keys > depicting the info how to name a boundary too. >> What do you think? (I am not an expert of the style processing) >> >> WanMil _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
