2011/10/4 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
And I always recommend that people put their tags on the relation, not on
the way - because I have a hunch that this is closer to a possible future
area type than asking people to tag the outer way.
+1, interpreting the tags on an outer way as tags
Frederik Ramm wrote:
While multipolygons with more than one outer *ring* are uncommon,
those with more than one outer *way* are heavily used where I live
That's all right, everyone where you live uses JOSM anyway. :)
The issue from my point of view is one of UI. I can't countenance a UI, or
Hi Y'all,
I hope that Richard is right and the glorious future of area primitives
is coming...Viva La Revolución! :-) In the meantime...
It seems to me that multipolygons represent a chicken egg
problem...because the data quality issues are semantic (that is, you can
create legal OSM XML
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 03:23:35AM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
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
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.
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 08:20:10AM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
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
Hi All,
I stumbled across an issue this week and I don't have a great solution
to it, so I thought I'd share it here.
In osm2pgsql we handle two types of multipolygons - those with the
useful tags on the relation, and those with no useful tags on the
relation where we use the outer ways instead.
Hi,
On 10/04/11 11:41, Andy Allan wrote:
In osm2pgsql we handle two types of multipolygons - those with the
useful tags on the relation, and those with no useful tags on the
relation where we use the outer ways instead. Note that we also
explicitly allow the relations to have a name. See
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 10:41:10AM +0100, Andy Allan wrote:
I stumbled across an issue this week and I don't have a great solution
to it, so I thought I'd share it here.
In osm2pgsql we handle two types of multipolygons - those with the
useful tags on the relation, and those with no useful
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
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 11:57:04AM +0200, 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.
Mostly
Hi,
2011/10/4 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com:
In osm2pgsql we handle two types of multipolygons - those with the
useful tags on the relation, and those with no useful tags on the
relation where we use the outer ways instead. Note that we also
explicitly allow the relations to have a name.
Hi,
On 10/04/11 12:23, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
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)
While multipolygons with more than
13 matches
Mail list logo
