----- Original Message ----- From: "David Earl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Artem Pavlenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "David Groom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <talk@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Large Rivers in general, mapnik rendering in Particular
> You could do it as a relation. > > The river bank would be a set of ways (each of which shares its end nodes > with the ends of one of the others), and you could have a role for the one > or two ways which close the loop which says "this is structural, not > really part of the river bank". The renderer would have to assemble the > polygon from the constituent ways (start with one way, find the end node > as the start node of another way and so on), but then rendering would be > as per any other polygon. > > It's a bit fiddly, but it removes the problems of the > artificial connections across the water not eing idetifiable while at the > same time still providing a complete polygon (albeit indirectly) for the > renderer to work on. > You mean like http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Rivers, which would be my ideal, but I'm just not sure Mapnik and [EMAIL PROTECTED], mkgmap, and Kosmos, etc .... would be able to deal with these. I guess it comes down to two conflicting opinions: 1) are we tagging to match as near as possible what is the real position on the ground, and the renders then have to deal with this; or 2) should our tagging structure make it as easy as possible for the renderers > David > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
