On 23/02/2008, David Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I see that someone has gone ahead and put automatic parking symbols at > the middle of amenity=parking areas in osmarender. This means nearly all > parking is getting two symbols now and it looks AWFUL. (The good news, > though is that the symbol is nearly always close to where I chose to put > a node manually). > > Unfortunately removing the related node isn't going to work, because > Mapnik won't then render parking symbols. And it is a lot of work to do > that. > > And by the way, even if Mapnik does eventually do this, don't be tempted > to remove P nodes automatically, as some of them have names. The names > would need to be transferred to the area, with all the issues of > conflicts that might throw up. > > Since we have contradictory behaviour in the two renderers we can't > resolve this automatically unless osmarender can look and see on the fly > if there is a P node inside the area it is trying to do one for > automatically. > > In the meantime, I think osmarender should only do this if there is a > tag on the area (eg osmarender:symbol=yes). > If I create a parking area I really don't want to have to place a node as well so it would be better if the renderer's were clever and ignored any node thats within the area where it has the same tags (eg parking / name). If I'm mapping properly and systematically I tend to draw in the parking area but if I'm just noting parking then its a node so at different times both get used and thus both should be rendered appropriately. If I do create an area I then obviously remove the node, transferring ant tags to the area if required.
The same arguments apply to most areas. I have similar issues with schools for instance where the school icon is rendered for a node but not for an area. We ought to try and keep consistency. Cheers Andy -- Andy Robinson _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
