Richard --
I filed a bug for this, there was some discussion, and I closed it:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1754
Feel free to reopen if you think this needs more discussion. The consensus
seemed to be that lakes within forests should be tagged as inner of the
forest
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 07:27:11PM -0700, Paul Norman wrote:
This email is also in user diary form at osm.org/user/pnorman/diary/35589
where issue numbers are linked.
OpenStreetMap Carto 2.33.0 has been released. This release focuses on
cartographic style improvements, but the release notes
Op 17 aug. 2015, om 16:48 heeft Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org het
volgende geschreven:
Richard --
I filed a bug for this, there was some discussion, and I closed it:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1754
On 15/08/15 23:04, Paul Norman wrote:
17 117 occurences is not 'not in the database'.
No, a key not in
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/openstreetmap-carto.style
is not in the database. landcover is not in that list, so is not in the
database.
The data is in
On 8/15/2015 1:15 PM, Ruben Maes wrote:
17 117 occurences is not 'not in the database'.
No, a key not in
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/openstreetmap-carto.style
is not in the database. landcover is not in that list, so is not in the
database.
On 15 August 2015 14:16:06 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO it would rather encourage mappers to make more sense out of these
than it is now. I'm myself adding a pointless landuse=forest for every
landcover=trees now (for the renderer), and I guess most other
sent from a phone
Am 15.08.2015 um 13:50 schrieb Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de:
The question is how much is actually gained from this when
landuse=forest and natural=wood are practically identical anyway and
mean the same, namely 'this area is densely covered by trees'.
To clarify, I'm not advocating the use of landcover=* tag (I'm on the
fence).
However I've never liked that fact that an attribute of tree areas
(managed) was differentiated with primary key tags instead of sub-tags
such as:
landuse/landcover=wood/trees
managed=yes/no
landcover=trees is
Hi
Does the combined wood/forest update include landcover=trees? If not it
needs to be included all three should render the same (IMO).
Cheers
Dave F.
On 15/08/2015 03:27, Paul Norman wrote:
This email is also in user diary form at osm.org/user/pnorman/diary/35589
where issue numbers
The woodland change looks much better, but would it not be possible to
render broadleaved, needleleaved and mixed using different tree
images, as seen on other maps? This would, I think, give people more
incentive to add this information when mapping woodland.
Regards
Tony
On 15 August 2015 at
I'm on the fence about this. Does the 'general purpose' mapnik rendering
need such distinctions? Would the vast majority of end users really
care. Could it even make it more confusing for them?
Cheers
Dave F.
On 15/08/2015 12:45, tony wroblewski wrote:
The woodland change looks much better,
On Saturday 15 August 2015, Dave F. wrote:
Hi
Does the combined wood/forest update include landcover=trees? If not
it needs to be included all three should render the same (IMO).
The question is how much is actually gained from this when
landuse=forest and natural=wood are practically
On 8/15/2015 4:45 AM, tony wroblewski wrote:
The woodland change looks much better, but would it not be possible to
render broadleaved, needleleaved and mixed using different tree
images, as seen on other maps?
Not at the moment. See
On 8/15/2015 4:26 AM, Dave F. wrote:
Hi
Does the combined wood/forest update include landcover=trees? If not
it needs to be included all three should render the same (IMO).
No. Nor are there any issues created about rendering landcover=trees. As
the landcover key is currently not in the
Saturday 15 August 2015 12:59:55, Paul Norman:
On 8/15/2015 4:26 AM, Dave F. wrote:
Hi
Does the combined wood/forest update include landcover=trees? If not
it needs to be included all three should render the same (IMO).
No. Nor are there any issues created about rendering
Please, remember to change the subject when the subject shift occurs...
W dniu 15.08.2015 22:15, Ruben Maes napisał(a):
17 117 occurences is not 'not in the database'. Sure, it's only 0.12%
of all landuses, but this is a key that isn't even rendered on the
default style.
Paul was talking
This email is also in user diary form at osm.org/user/pnorman/diary/35589
where issue numbers are linked.
OpenStreetMap Carto 2.33.0 has been released. This release focuses on
cartographic style improvements, but the release notes also include 2.32.0.
The biggest changes are
- A randomized
On 8/14/2015 7:27 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
This email is also in user diary form at osm.org/user/pnorman/diary/35589
where issue numbers are linked.
I forgot to mention in the earlier message, please file any bug reports
at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto
18 matches
Mail list logo
