IMHO, and that's what most bothers me at the old interpretation of
multipolygons, any tag that belongs to a closed way should be valid for
that closed way.
We don't inherit names from streets to bus route relations - why should
we do so for names of polygons to multipolygons?
Therefore my interpre
On 2014-06-13 8:17 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
Paul,
I don't have anything technical to add but I have a suggestion or two:
1. If this is an area where the old multipolygons could be converted
entirely to the new style- do you propose an automated edit to OSM?
No. There's .25M of them or so.
Paul,
I don't have anything technical to add but I have a suggestion or two:
1. If this is an area where the old multipolygons could be converted
entirely to the new style- do you propose an automated edit to OSM?
2. If not, are there instructions we could do to OSM editors? If so,
then perhaps
Holger Jeromin wrote:
To support this change it would be nice to setup a list on the web
with the buggy relations.
(apologies for asking what might be the bleeding obvious but)
Do any of the existing QA tools flag multipolygon outers with
conflicting tags?
Alternatively, could (or does it a
Thing is, it may be easier to find a consensus in -dev than elsewhere.
So a fixing list would be a good thing, indeed.
Yves
On 13 juin 2014 16:20:09 UTC+02:00, Holger Jeromin wrote:
>Paul Norman schrieb am 13.06.2014 01:25:
>
>> To support this, I looked for some numbers. Using a shortened delete
Paul Norman schrieb am 13.06.2014 01:25:
> To support this, I looked for some numbers. Using a shortened deleted tags
> list, there are 1 million new-style and 261k old-style MPs. Of the
> old-style,
> 256k have a member with role outer. 251k of these have entirely consistent
> tags on outers, wh
2014-06-13 1:25 GMT+02:00 Paul Norman :
> I think we need to move to a more strict parsing of MPs, accepting only
> new-style MPs and old-style MPs where all outers have identical
> non-deleted[2]
> tags and the relation itself has no non-deleted tags.
>
+1
There is really only one usecase wher
+1, spent a lot of time debugging issues when a tag from outer leaks
into multipolygon itself.
Also, I'd prefer to use not non-deleted tags, but the whole set of
tags, as I'm currently using a stlyesheet with a large deletion list.
This would make geometry interpretation stylesheet-independent.
2
+10
if we could enforce the strict usage in multipolygon relations this
might as well be a step forward to a future area datatype as it would
straighten the definition of how areas are defined currently, and start
by a less ambiguous definition for the subset of areas described by
multipolygon rela
Of course, what is really needed is an "area" primitive type that
incorporates the generic multipolygon structure. Then editing tools
would always generate the correct tagging. Relations would then be left
to describe associations between objects and not geometries as well.
_
+1 for consistency
MP would be easier to learn from example if a single method 'works'.
Yves
On 13 juin 2014 01:25:42 UTC+02:00, Paul Norman wrote:
>Osm2pgsql currently tries *very* hard to turn multipolygon relations
>into
>geometries. It currently detects two types of MP relations, new-style
>a
11 matches
Mail list logo
