On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:06 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > another approach from the same page is titled "dominance" where > dominance expresses the distance to the next "higher" (in terms of > importance / population) place. The higher (in terms of distance) the > more dominant. > > This serves to determine which names to show and which to omit. (in > scarse areas you would want to see also smaller places, but in > concentrated areas you will have to omit also big cities in favour of > even bigger (or more important according to a scheme like the above > described one) ones.
This sounds very much like the concept of topographic prominence <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence> wherein subpeaks of high mountains aren't that important compared to the main peak despite having a high absolute elevation. On the other hand, how will this dominance play out in twin cities such as Minneapolis-St. Paul? I find it likely that a normal renderer will pick out one of these cities, place the label and ignore the other because the space is already occupied, when what is expected is that these two cities are both labeled. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
