On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Gustav Foseid wrote:
> Can you show me how to make rendering rules (I am mostly interested in
> Mapnik, but any renderer will do as a proof of concept), which does not draw
> a border line along the coastline of Germany and at the territorial waters
> border of Ge
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Jochen Topf wrote:
> But! There always is a but, isn't there. :-) When I look at popular
> maps, a very common thing is to only paint part of the map boundaries in
> the water. Normally only out from the coast for a few kilometers and
> maybe between islands or s
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 10:00:04PM +0100, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 20:44:38 +0100, Jochen Topf wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 07:24:00PM +0100, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)
> wrote:
> >> >> Maritime borders are by their nature different from administrative
> >> >> bor
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 08:01:12PM +0100, Gustav Foseid wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Jochen Topf wrote:
>
> > Simple rendering without need for the relation has been taken care of
> > in the comprehensive proposal by tagging the ways with admin_level. What
> > else do you need?
>
>
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 20:44:38 +0100, Jochen Topf wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 07:24:00PM +0100, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)
wrote:
>> >> Maritime borders are by their nature different from administrative
>> >> borders on land, so I think that using boundary=maritime rather than
>> >> boundary=admi
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Jochen Topf wrote:
>
> The version where boundary=administrative is used on the water is, at
> least in Europe, already beeing used in many places.
Yes it is. The result is that we now have (almost) the only world map with
territorial waters rendered the same way
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 06:30:31PM +, Thomas Wood wrote:
> > Why are they different? I don't see that.
> >
> > Adding new tags (here boundary=maritime) always has a cost. Every
> > software that wants to do something with the data has to know about it.
>
> Some software will want to differenti
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Jochen Topf wrote:
> Simple rendering without need for the relation has been taken care of
> in the comprehensive proposal by tagging the ways with admin_level. What
> else do you need?
You have taken care of the wrong part of rendering. It is easy to render the
2009/2/9 Jochen Topf :
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 05:20:51PM +, Thomas Wood wrote:
>> I see no reason why the relation model cannot apply with a tagging of
>> boundary=maritime on the maritime sections of the boundary.
>> The required ways will still be retrievable from a (correctly
>> produced)
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 05:20:51PM +, Thomas Wood wrote:
> I see no reason why the relation model cannot apply with a tagging of
> boundary=maritime on the maritime sections of the boundary.
> The required ways will still be retrievable from a (correctly
> produced) relation, so the primary con
2009/2/9 Jochen Topf :
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 08:57:07PM +0100, Gustav Foseid wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Gustav Foseid wrote:
>>
>> > This is not intended to solve all problems with tagging of maritime
>> > borders, just as a temporary way to tag these borders without causing
>>
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 11:07:17 +, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Gustav Foseid wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jochen Topf wrote:
>>
>>>
>> Actually the best we have is the actual tagging in the database. Works
>>> wonderfully.
>>
>>
>> I disagree.
Gustav Foseid schrieb:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Crucially, the coastline ways are never tagged with any boundary tag; they
>> are just included as-is in the land_area=administrative relation.
>
>
> So, a renderer will need to understand realtions to be able to r
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> You have probably not read the posting to which Jochen refers. It is here:
>
Read, but not understood (even if I did try...)
> It distinguishes between "boundary=administrative" (which would denote the
> political boundaries, be they on w
Hi,
Gustav Foseid wrote:
> If we tag maritime borders the
> same way as land borders, it will be very difficult for someone using OSM
> data to avoid drawing halos, with todays renderers I would even call it
> impossible.
You have probably not read the posting to which Jochen refers. It is here:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 12:07 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tagging the appropriate parts with maritime=yes or something would add
> valuable semantic information about these borders. It would also then make
> it very easy for renderers to suppress them or render them differently.
>
One of
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Gustav Foseid wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jochen Topf wrote:
>
>>
> Actually the best we have is the actual tagging in the database. Works
>> wonderfully.
>
>
> I disagree.
>
> Can you show me how to make rendering rules (I am mostly interested in
>
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jochen Topf wrote:
>
Actually the best we have is the actual tagging in the database. Works
> wonderfully.
I disagree.
Can you show me how to make rendering rules (I am mostly interested in
Mapnik, but any renderer will do as a proof of concept), which does not
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 08:57:07PM +0100, Gustav Foseid wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Gustav Foseid wrote:
>
> > This is not intended to solve all problems with tagging of maritime
> > borders, just as a temporary way to tag these borders without causing
> > bubbles around all coastlin
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Gustav Foseid wrote:
> This is not intended to solve all problems with tagging of maritime
> borders, just as a temporary way to tag these borders without causing
> bubbles around all coastlines in all general purpose renderers.
Some more progess has been made on
Very well, it also gives me a reason to revert the bits that somebody
deleted around the north west coast of scotland...
2009/1/4 Gustav Foseid :
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Richard Fairhurst
> wrote:
>>
>> Ugh. Can we (ping steve8) get some way of tagging this differently so it
>> _doesn't
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Ugh. Can we (ping steve8) get some way of tagging this differently so it
> _doesn't_ show? It looks really, really ugly.
As a temporary solution, I suggest that until a proper tagging scheme for
maritime borders are found, the following
Thomas Wood wrote:
> In other news, I've converted the 12nm line around the UK and Ireland
> to be fully tagged, so it's now showing in its own bubble on the
> mapnik render.
Ugh. Can we (ping steve8) get some way of tagging this differently so it
_doesn't_ show? It looks really, really ugly.
ch
IMO, the proposal of Gustav is better, because maritime borders clearly
are administrative. Martijn suggests that there is a clear difference
between country and maritime borders. However, it are different
properties of a border: a border can be one or both. The half of the
Dutch country border
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> boundary=maritime?
or something like:
boundary=administrative
admin_maritime=territorial
?
- Gustav
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
boundary=maritime?
They are not political boundaries in the way countries are, since you
can't actually physically mark them in any useful way. It's more like,
"in this area we consider you subject to our laws". Whether anyone
cares is quite another issue.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterh
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Thomas Wood wrote:
> In other news, I've converted the 12nm line around the UK and Ireland
> to be fully tagged, so it's now showing in its own bubble on the
> mapnik render.
In my mind, these halos around al islands, are in itself a good reason to
provide som kin
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Thomas Wood wrote:
> 2008/12/31 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason :
>> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Steven te Brinke
>> wrote:
>>> The maritime borders clearly are administrative and probably are admin_level
>>> 2. However, on the wiki Iceland has defined the EEZ to be a
2008/12/31 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason :
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Steven te Brinke
> wrote:
>> The maritime borders clearly are administrative and probably are admin_level
>> 2. However, on the wiki Iceland has defined the EEZ to be admin_level 1. I
>
> It's not actually used though, Iceland
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Steven te Brinke
wrote:
> The maritime borders clearly are administrative and probably are admin_level
> 2. However, on the wiki Iceland has defined the EEZ to be admin_level 1. I
It's not actually used though, Iceland only has admin_level=6 borders
defined at the
2008/12/31 Gustav Foseid
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:26 PM, D Tucny wrote:
>
>> I'm not exactly up on laws, rules, treaties and agreements etc regarding
>> borders and controls, but, is this not about politics? If Someone from,
>> using your example, Morocco, flies to the UK via Ireland, they al
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:26 PM, D Tucny wrote:
> I'm not exactly up on laws, rules, treaties and agreements etc regarding
> borders and controls, but, is this not about politics? If Someone from,
> using your example, Morocco, flies to the UK via Ireland, they also won't
> need to go through imi
2008/12/31 Gustav Foseid
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:37 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
>
>> Some land borders, e.g. between Ireland and the UK are like that. No
>> border control.
>
>
> It is not exactly the same. Anyone (say a person from Morocco or Colombia)
> is not allowed to walk across Ireland on
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:37 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
> Some land borders, e.g. between Ireland and the UK are like that. No
> border control.
It is not exactly the same. Anyone (say a person from Morocco or Colombia)
is not allowed to walk across Ireland on his way to the UK without going
throug
The maritime borders clearly are administrative and probably are
admin_level 2. However, on the wiki Iceland has defined the EEZ to be
admin_level 1. I think it should be possible to distinguish country
borders from maritime borders, so IMO these borders should have an
additional border_type ta
On 30/12/08 21:44, Richard Bullock wrote:
>> This is, at best, confusing and, at worst, wrong. The territorial waters
>> and
>> contiguous zones have very different legal status from a national border,
>> you can for instance pass through the territorial waters of a nation
>> without
>> any borde
> In Europe a number of maritime borders have been tagged recently as
> national
> borders, with boundary=administrative and admin_level=2.
>
> Exactly what is tagged varies:
> North of Norway: A part of the exclusive economic zone
> Finland: 24 mile contiguous zone
> South of Sweden: Looks like a
37 matches
Mail list logo