IMO, the embankment tag (as described in the wiki) is being used for two different things: 1) the linear banking (as in an embankment along a river, for example), and 2) a "raised finger of land". I suggest that these two cases are distinguished, either by using two separate tags, or by adding an "embankment:width" tag; where the width is not specified, the embankment would be considered linear. This way, the example I linked to would have a single way (the railway), with the embankment tag and an embankment:width.
Simone 2009/12/1 Andre Engels <[email protected]> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:48 AM, Cartinus <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Monday 30 November 2009 23:36:27 Simone Saviolo wrote: > >> I'm not sure I understood the WIki correctly - either that, or > Osmarender > >> doesn't do what the wiki says. In this place [1], the railway runs on a > >> raised finger of land, as described in the wiki. So I put two parallel > ways > >> on both sides of the railway and tagged them as embankments; but the > >> resulting render suggests that one way would be enough. What is the > >> intended use of the embankment tag? > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Simone > >> > >> [1] > >> > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.13958&lon=8.45655&zoom=17&layers=0B00FTF > >> > > > > <quote> > > Embankments that share a way with a highway, railway or waterway are > rendered > > with "spikes" on both sides. (Currently only in Osmarender.) > > > > Micro-mapped embankments should be rendered with the left-hand side of > the way > > being the high side and the right-hand side being the low side. > (Currently > > nothing supports this however.) > > </quote> > > > > Like I wrote in the wiki a few hours ago: The micro-mapping approach is > not > > supported by anything. Osmarender is the only renderer (known to me) that > > does anything with embankments and it only looks good if you use > > embankment=yes or man_made=embankment on the same way as the > > railway/highway/waterway. > > The problem with the micro-mapping approach is, in my opinion, that it > forces the renderer to interpret something that's not directly in the > data, by using the same notation for two very different situations, > namely a single, broad embankment and two embankments running parallel > in the same vicinity. > > If one wants to show the width of the embankment, I think the more > correct thing to do would be to have the embaknkment be one closed > curve, perhaps also with area=yes attached. This however would have > the problem of getting the 'spikes' also at the beginning and the end. > Another option would be to add a tag "embankment_side = > left/right/both" with "both" being the default value. > > -- > André Engels, [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
