Forgot to reply-all. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Local map making - truncating ways on boundary? To: Dirk-Lüder Kreie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Dirk-Lüder Kreie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Karl Newman schrieb: > > | If OSM had a polygon type, or if every closed way was guaranteed to have > a > | "area=yes" tag, then we could deal with tiling in a generic way, but > since > | it doesn't (who knows why... I believe all professional GIS systems > do, for > | a good reason) > > There are closed ways that are not areas. > Yes, I meant to say if every *polygon* which is represented as a closed way was guaranteed to have an "area=yes" tag or some other distinguishing feature. > And the reason for the area type not there is because it has not been > used when it was there. > > up to now it just has been simpler for most cases to just use closed > ways and tag them appropriately. > > Really? I never knew OSM had a polygon type. I can't believe it went unused. It would certainly simplify things, as I've demonstrated... I know OSM is all about "no rules" but in my experience, just the right amount of rules can make you really productive.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
