On 9/2/2011 3:40 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
On 09/01/2011 02:57 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
IMHO there is no "landuse" inside another landuse (at least for the
"true" landuses which are the landuses by man.
Do we agree that nested polygons replace, not supplement, the outer
polygon?
The rendering seems cool with this, and it makes sense. If I draw a forest,
then draw a landuse=reservoir on top of it, those interested in the
forest's true area can subtract out the reservoir. No multipolgon
relation needed.
I disagree with this example. First, landuse=reservoir is an
abomination, since it doesn't refer to land that is used for reservoir
purposes, but only to that which is normally covered by water. Second,
the managed forest generally does not extend all the way to the edge of
the water.
A better example might be an office park tagged landuse=commercial, but
with one of the buildings or a portion thereof used for retail and
tagged as such. There is no separate parking for retail customers, so
one cannot draw a line between commercial and retail uses, as the
parking lot serves both.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
