Re: [OSM-talk] Lakes and relations, what did I break?

2008-04-21 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Close-areas uses a tile index to find out what to do when it > encounters a tile with *no* coastline at all (and your tiles do not > have coastline on them). The tile index may indicate either land, sea, > or "mixed". I

Re: [OSM-talk] Lakes and relations, what did I break?

2008-04-20 Thread Dermot McNally
On 21/04/2008, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems the problem is close-areas related after all. Ha! ;) > Close-areas uses a tile index to find out what to do when it > encounters a tile with *no* coastline at all (and your tiles do not > have coastline on them). The tile inde

Re: [OSM-talk] Lakes and relations, what did I break?

2008-04-20 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, > > close_areas does get called now for natural=water, doesn't it? If not, > > that could be another cause... > > It doesn't. Well, it is called for the whole input file but only > processes stuff that is tagged natural=coastline! It seems the problem is close-areas related after all. Close

Re: [OSM-talk] Lakes and relations, what did I break?

2008-04-20 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, > close_areas does get called now for natural=water, doesn't it? If not, > that could be another cause... It doesn't. Well, it is called for the whole input file but only processes stuff that is tagged natural=coastline! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°0

Re: [OSM-talk] Lakes and relations, what did I break?

2008-04-19 Thread Dermot McNally
An update to this: To exclude some possibilities, I've removed the relation. Now the lake outlines are simple clockwise water, the islands, for the time being, are simply untagged and out of the picture. No improvement - the problem is clearly not caused by relations. Does anybody have tips for h

Re: [OSM-talk] Lakes and relations, what did I break?

2008-04-17 Thread Jon Burgess
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 00:26 +0100, Dermot McNally wrote: > To anyone who can show me what I broke: > > http://geo.topf.org/comparison/index.html?mt0=mapnik&mt1=tah&x=971&y=657&z=11 > > I worked on this pair of lakes in NW Ireland a few days ago. The > Osmarender output is broken, but I decided t

Re: [OSM-talk] Lakes and relations, what did I break?

2008-04-17 Thread Dermot McNally
Hmm, forgot to copy all in my last message... Yes, I agree that Potlatch does seem to imply that the islands are clockwise. I hadn't spotted this before, though, since I mostly use JOSM. JOSM shows the islands as being correctly anticlockwise. So this is either a Potlatch bug or we're both misinte

Re: [OSM-talk] Lakes and relations, what did I break?

2008-04-17 Thread Dermot McNally
On 17/04/2008, Robert Vollmert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps it's because the holes aren't oriented counter-clockwise? It's > possible that osmarender still relies on orientation for rendering > multipolygons. That was my first thought too. I have checked, but perhaps I've missed one. De

Re: [OSM-talk] Lakes and relations, what did I break?

2008-04-17 Thread Robert Vollmert
On Apr 17, 2008, at 01:26, Dermot McNally wrote: > To anyone who can show me what I broke: > > http://geo.topf.org/comparison/index.html?mt0=mapnik&mt1=tah&x=971&y=657&z=11 [...] > So I decided to fix them. Rather than follow my usual practice of > representing islands in lakes as land at layer

[OSM-talk] Lakes and relations, what did I break?

2008-04-16 Thread Dermot McNally
To anyone who can show me what I broke: http://geo.topf.org/comparison/index.html?mt0=mapnik&mt1=tah&x=971&y=657&z=11 I worked on this pair of lakes in NW Ireland a few days ago. The Osmarender output is broken, but I decided to wait for Mapnik to re-render before panicking. Let the panic begin..