It's not what I meant.
The example you provided is a multipolygon relation and multipolygons
are always areas regardless if area=yes is set or not.
So this is not a valid example, actually I can not find one really
evident of missing area=yes on pedestrian areas.
Lorenzo
Il giorno dom, 06/01
Hi Ticker,
yes, you are right. I guess I thought about the special case where the mp-code
would try to close an unclosed ring.
Gerd
Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von Ticker
Berkin
Gesendet: Sonntag, 6. Januar 2019 18:34
An: Development list for mkgmap
Be
Hi
I don't see anything in the OSM definition of a square that requires it
to come from a multipolygon relation
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian
Ticker
On Sun, 2019-01-06 at 17:46 +0100, Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi wrote:
> Il giorno dom, 06/01/2019 alle 12.45 +, Ticke
Hi Gerd
Not sure what you mean here. Only complete polygons, either from closed
ways or generated by multipolygon get to be interpreted by 'polygons'
style processing.
Ticker
On Sun, 2019-01-06 at 16:58 +, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> Hi all,
> Just to make that clear: A way with highway=pedestr
Hi all,
Just to make that clear: A way with highway=pedestrian is that is not closed
will only be treated by polygon
rules when it is part of a multipolygon.
So, the question is how many of those don't have an area=yes and how many of
the latter probably should have area=yes.
Gerd
Il giorno dom, 06/01/2019 alle 12.45 +, Ticker Berkin ha scritto:
> Hi Lorenzo
>
> I know that the OSM definition says square should have area=yes, but
> I
> find a vast number where there is no area tag and they seem to be
> square/piazza, eg
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/517417
Hi Gerd
see embedded answers
Regards
Ticker
On Sun, 2019-01-06 at 09:11 +, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> Hi Ticker,
>
> I think I understand the changes in the points file and in
> inc/accesss_country and they look okay to me. I agree that it is
> better to have the hotel POI
> for those cases wh
Bernhard Hiller writes:
> I often travel on bike in "nowhere land", where hotels and restaurants
> are rare. So I think it is good to show both PoIs if a hotel contains
> a restaurant. Of course, it would be more relevant to know how other
> users of OSM Garmin maps think about this topic (I use
Ticker Berkin writes:
> I know that the OSM definition says square should have area=yes, but I
> find a vast number where there is no area tag and they seem to be
> square/piazza, eg
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5174171
>
> With Italy data from July 2018, I get about 5000 highway=pe
Hi Lorenzo
I know that the OSM definition says square should have area=yes, but I
find a vast number where there is no area tag and they seem to be
square/piazza, eg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5174171
With Italy data from July 2018, I get about 5000 highway=pedestrian
polygons withou
Hi Ticker,
I think I understand the changes in the points file and in inc/accesss_country
and they look okay to me. I agree that it is better to have the hotel POI
for those cases where a point has both amenity=restaurant and tourism=hotel.
In polygons I don't understand some of the changes.
Dub
Hi Ticker,
I often travel on bike in "nowhere land", where hotels and restaurants
are rare. So I think it is good to show both PoIs if a hotel contains a
restaurant. Of course, it would be more relevant to know how other users
of OSM Garmin maps think about this topic (I use my own style, so t
12 matches
Mail list logo
