Le 15.04.19 à 11:04, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 5:12 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > - a closed way tagged as "tourism=camp_site" and "barrier=hedge" will
> > render with a hedge line around the outside, but the campsite color
> > fill on the inside.
>
> the rendering could decide to not render it at all [when a closed way is
double-tagged with 2 features]
Unfortunately this isn’t feasible. Normally we render a feature like a
fence or hedge in a separate “layer” so that they are on top of certain
features like landuse, and below other features
sent from a phone
> On 15. Apr 2019, at 03:14, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> So in case of option 2,
> - a closed way that was tagged "barrier=hedge" only will be rendered as a
> line.
> - a closed way tagged as "barrier=hedge" AND "area=yes" will be
> rendered with a green fill for the whol
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 11:15, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> My question to everyone on this forum: does option 2 makes sense to
> you as a mapper?
Yep, does to me.
Thanks
Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstre
Gates can be mapped as nodes, so the fence or hedge or wall can be
mapped as a single way that goes around the field, and the gates or
stiles as nodes of that way.
I agree with everyone who says that it is best practice to map a
"barrier=hedge" as separate feature from a "landuse=meadow", but in
r
A barrier on a park will have some means of getting in!!!
So the barrier will not be continuous - having gate/s or gaps etc.
The park boundary would then consist of the way that is the fence/barrier and
other ways (possibly a gate etc) and that then meets the definition for a
multipolygon rela
Le 13.04.19 à 02:37, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> Will validators in JOSM and other editors be able to point out a
> problem if a closed way is tagged with both "area=yes",
> "barrier=hedge" and "landuse=meadow"?
a area with a fence as an attribute of this area
is better described with fenced=yes
sent from a phone
> On 14. Apr 2019, at 08:37, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
>
> This makes even less sense and is even clumsier, especially for those
> using iD if memory serves correctly.
I did not experience problems with id in such cases, but I also would not let
the mapping concepts be lead by
sent from a phone
> On 14. Apr 2019, at 06:15, Phake Nick wrote:
>
> area=no would also applies to amenity=park or landcover=* if you are tagging
> them in the same object.
you cannot map them on the same object. The name would also apply to the fence,
the height would also apply to the pa
On 4/13/19 15:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> On 13. Apr 2019, at 19:58, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
>>
>> It makes no sense to have to add separate ways for barrier=fence and
>> leisure=park when the fence surrounds the entire park.
>
> you could make the park a multipolygon.
This makes even less se
On 14/04/19 14:15, Phake Nick wrote:
area=no would also applies to amenity=park or landcover=* if you are
tagging them in the same object.
If a were were
tagged barrier=*, area=no
A member of a relation as the outer way tagged amenity=park
Would not the way be both then recognised as
a) a b
area=no would also applies to amenity=park or landcover=* if you are
tagging them in the same object.
在 2019年4月14日週日 05:16,Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道:
> As a closed way would normally be taken as an area,but in the case of this
> barrier it is required not to be an area, why not use the tag
As a closed way would normally be taken as an area,but in the case of this
barrier it is required not to be an area, why not use the tag area=no?
Tag the unusual rather than the normal?
Then, as Martin says, use the way of the barrier in a multipolygon relation for
a park.
On 14/04/19 06:43
sent from a phone
> On 13. Apr 2019, at 19:58, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
>
> It makes no sense to have to add separate ways for barrier=fence and
> leisure=park when the fence surrounds the entire park.
you could make the park a multipolygon.
Cheers, Martin
__
On 4/13/19 04:19, Dave F via Tagging wrote:
> Mapping two features with the same way seem highly efficient.
> That OSM-Carto's software is unable to deal with it, is a long-standing
> weakness & should be rewritten to solve it. However, regrettably those
> involved in the project seem to like using
Apr 13, 2019, 11:19 AM by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
> regrettably those involved in the project seem to like using the software's
> shortcomings as an excuse not to sort out problems
>
Note sure what was the intention of this comment, but at least in my case it is
- discouraging from spending t
Hedges are normally linear feature and being a rambler in rural Shropshire I
map a lot of them.
It is quite common to map a hedge as a closed way around a field with barrier
nodes for gates and stiles. Without an area tag I would assume this norm, it is
how very many are mapped.
Sometimes a h
On 13/04/2019 01:37, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Example: I'm considering using the tag "area=yes" to check if a
barrier should be rendered as an area. Right now "barrier=hedge" is
rendered as an area in the Openstreetmap-carto if it is imported as a
polygon. This happens for all closed ways that a
>Example: I'm considering using the tag "area=yes" to check if a
>barrier should be rendered as an area. Right now "barrier=hedge" is
>rendered as an area in the Openstreetmap-carto if it is imported as a
>polygon. This happens for all closed ways that are tagged "area=yes",
>but it also happens if
Question: Will mappers understand if adding or taking away "area=yes"
from a closed way changes the rendering?
Background: Right now the wiki pages for barrier=wall and
barrier=hedge allow these features to be mapped as an area, but the
closed way is supposed to have the tag "area=yes" added to ma
20 matches
Mail list logo