On Jan 13, 2008 5:01 PM, Robin Paulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 14/01/2008, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Let's not confuse rendering issues with data issues. The point was that > the > > single high-level water tag could be used to designate water. Adding > > area=yes will indicate that it is an area (lake, etc.), not just a line. > > thanks Karl, i'd lost track of where this was going > > the point i was making is that we don't need to say area=yes for > lakes. if it's a lake, always draw it as an area. > any object drawn as a way and tagged 'lake' can easily be ignored by > the renderer, as this is not valid, and frankly IMO it's confusing. in > what circumstances could this be useful? > > no need for the area tag at all >
But that gets back to the specialized tagging (renderers/data consumers having to know about lakes, reservoirs, etc.). If it were just natural=water, area=yes, (or whatever the proposed tag was), then it could be dealt with appropriately regardless of the waterway type. For that matter, I wish all closed ways which designate an area were marked as such. I'm working on writing a tiling task for Osmosis which will carve up data into rectangular grids (for feeding into GPS map creators such as mkgmap). It has to treat closed ways differently than linear features (hard clip them with synthetic nodes right at the boundaries and link the clipped parts together). Without a universal tag such as area=yes designating a way as a polygon (simply having a closed way is not sufficient--witness roundabouts), the tiling task will have to know about every type of tag which implicitly designates a polygon. Then when a new implicit polygon tag is added, the task won't correctly treat it as a polygon until it's told about it. We really could use a generic method for designating polygons. Karl
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
