I was thinking about better rendering rivers on medium and low zoom
levels of osm-carto and I've found that we lack any classification of
them - anything bigger than stream is just a river.
There are no suitable tags defined:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driver
and no suc
On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 11:26:23AM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote:
> I was thinking about better rendering rivers on medium and low zoom levels
> of osm-carto and I've found that we lack any classification of them -
> anything bigger than stream is just a river.
as of rendering, respecting river width an
There is the CEMT tag, but I guess it's only usefull for Europe:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:CEMT
Janko
Pošiljatelj: Daniel Koć
Poslano:6. kolovoza 2017. 11:28
Primatelj: Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Predmet: [Tagging] Rivers classification
I was thinking about better rendering rivers o
(Wrong title sorry, here it is again)
There is the CEMT tag, but I guess it's only useful for Europe:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:CEMT
Janko
ned, 6. kol 2017. u 13:34 Richard napisao je:
> On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 11:26:23AM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote:
> > I was thinking about bet
W dniu 06.08.2017 o 13:32, Richard pisze:
as of rendering, respecting river width and doing something reasonable
with intermittent flows would be a great progress.
What's the problem with intermittent flows? I'm not familiar with water
tagging.
River width is a local property - it can vary l
You're probably right Gerd. I sometimes get too enthusiastic about adding
tags to objects. The access tag is probably completely unnecessary. Still,
I'm curious about why other mappers decided to use it.
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Gerd Petermann <
gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
W dniu 06.08.2017 o 19:07, Lukas Sommer pisze:
[You have replied to me personally, but I guess it should go to the list]
I would encourage to use only _one_ classification system. Otherwise,
the tagging will be _very_ complex and using it for rendering nearly
to impossible, because it will be i
On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 05:30:20PM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote:
> W dniu 06.08.2017 o 13:32, Richard pisze:
> >as of rendering, respecting river width and doing something reasonable
> >with intermittent flows would be a great progress.
>
> What's the problem with intermittent flows? I'm not familiar w
W dniu 06.08.2017 o 23:19, Richard pisze:
The width is fine for many small rivers where mapping riverbanks would be
a nonsense and should be respected by the renderer.
But what you ask for seems like tagging for the renderer. Most of the
information is already there, either river width or the ge
We have a hierarchy of "importance" for roads, why not for waterways as
well? It's like we have nothing between motorway (river) and
unclassified (stream).
The problem I see with some of these stream models is that we are
starting from the big rivers with no mapping of tributaries in many
cases.
W dniu 06.08.2017 o 23:42, Colin Smale pisze:
The problem I see with some of these stream models is that we are
starting from the big rivers with no mapping of tributaries in many
cases. As detail gets added, it looks like the ratings of all the
downstream segments will need to be recomputed.
W dniu 07.08.2017 o 00:15, Lukas Sommer pisze:
Both, Wisła (http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/34392) and Czerwona
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/269561538) have the classic stream
order “1” just before they enter in the ocean. Likely, the former you
would like to render on low zoom levels,
12 matches
Mail list logo