On 05.09.2010 09:23, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Peter Wendorff
wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote:
I'm sure, there has to be a way for renderers to collapse parallel ways to
one - without explicit tagging in the database.
The railway example is only one of more
On 04.09.2010 07:00, Steve Bennett wrote:
Any existing renderer would not render C at all. Any renderer (or
other tool) that added support for railway=train_line, would
presumably also add support for the relation.
As that's right from the applications point of view, keep in mind the
need for
On 04/09/2010 06:53, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:37 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
so you are talking about rendering?
Primarily, yes. But could be useful for other applications. For
example, to do public transport routing, you would want to operate
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:37 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
so you are talking about rendering?
Primarily, yes. But could be useful for other applications. For
example, to do public transport routing, you would want to operate at
the level of the train line, not at the
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:59 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
The problem is that, even if you have a tag on the shared way indicating use
this only for zoom X or below, and tags on the separate ways saying use
this only for zoom Y and above, there are likely to be some
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
There is a proposal for a tracks= tag:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Multiple_Tracks
Ok, two points:
1) That's a mechanism for only having a single way, and coding
information about the number of tracks.
2010/9/2 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
There is a proposal for a tracks= tag:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Multiple_Tracks
Ok, two points:
1) That's a mechanism for only having a single way, and
The problem is that, even if you have a tag on the shared way indicating use
this only for zoom X or below, and tags on the separate ways saying use this
only for zoom Y and above, there are likely to be some rendering programs that
will show all three ways, leading to confusion.
2010/8/31 Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net:
Based on this discussion, it seems that the best advice to put on my
proposal for power generators is:
- use site relations where the power=generator objects don't obviously
overlap with the buildings they relate to, particularly where you are
dealing
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Sebastian Klein
basti...@googlemail.com wrote:
Isn't it kind of obvious, that a photovoltaic type power generator is
located on top of the building rather than inside or below?
You may assume a basic level of intelligence from the user of the data and
add only
On 8/30/10 9:06 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/8/29 Pierenpier...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
Perhaps a site relation? I'm not sure it's necessary; any application
that needs that information can calculate whether the polygons
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
i'd lean towards site relations being useful because i think that
the computational complexity of doing lots of polygon intersections
is being underestimated. yes, for small bounding boxes it's ok,
but consider if
2010/8/30 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
Yep. Polygon collisions can also be accidental, like when two objects
from slightly different sources (say one gps, one aerial imagery) are
near each other.
I'd consider this mapping failure actually. More than believing in
gps- and
2010/8/30 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
- these objects express the same thing as that object but in more
detail (eg, one line representing a pair or more of train lines)
in this actual example you don't need relations but can do as with
streets (lanes-tag). I'm not sure on the
* M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com [2010-08-30 17:40 +0200]:
2010/8/30 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
- these objects express the same thing as that object but in more
detail (eg, one line representing a pair or more of train lines)
in this actual example you don't
Hi there,
I want a way of creating an object for an energy generator and then saying
this is on top of / inside this building object. Here is an example of one
such object:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/35802300
I checked on the wiki page and couldn't see any established or proposed
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:
Hi there,
I want a way of creating an object for an energy generator and then saying
this is on top of / inside this building object. Here is an example of one
such object:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/35802300
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
Perhaps a site relation? I'm not sure it's necessary; any application
that needs that information can calculate whether the polygons
overlap.
Yes, the topology shows what is inside or outside the polygon. And you
Tom Chance wrote:
Hi there,
I want a way of creating an object for an energy generator and then
saying this is on top of / inside this building object. Here is an
example of one such object:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/35802300
I checked on the wiki page and couldn't see any
19 matches
Mail list logo
