On 08/29/2011 04:59 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
IMHO this is exactly driving us into a multipolygon mess, hard to edit
and timeconsuming to use, with unneeded complexity.
What would you think about a stacked approach?
You draw a regular polygon around the entire city:
landuse=residential
stacking=0
Then draw regular polygons around the shopping district
(or just tag the parcel data):
landuse=retail
stacking=1
Add the parks within the commercial district
landuse=recreation_ground
stacking=2
Add the lake in the park, as a regular polygon
natural=water
stacking=3
Insert a the beach in the park, as a regular polygon
natural=beach
stacking=4
And over it all, a long skinny building:
building=yes
stacking=10 (note the non-default stacking order)
With a patch of green grass roof (a city park):
landuse=recreation_ground
stacking=11
This of course is reinventing the multipolygon
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon_Examples> but would it
end up simpler?
For one advantage: you loose the requirements of proper rings.
And you'd have no trouble with seams and edges (because overlapping
would be OK).
For one downside: you have to parse everything in the bounding box
before calculating areas.
As with bridges, to add a land use may require re-stacking various other
things.
And you'd still have polygons at the edges of roads that need manual
adjustment every time the road geometry is improved.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
