Peter, The same idea has occurred to me also. I think far from developing this being a waste of time, I think it is highly desirable from the point of view of avoiding multiple ways sharing a set of nodes, which makes editing a nightmare. It seems all round the most elegant solution for multiple areas to me, and I agree, it should include the multipolygon functionality.
Regards, Dave ---original message follows--- Personally I prefer to recommend that you definer the area of grass using a separate way that uses the same nodes as the residential road, but which is certainly a separate way from the road. You may prefer to define it as a separate way using separate nodes as this can make editing easier in the short term, however Richard explained yesterday on talk how to use '/' to select from the different ways associated with the same node which I will investigate. Using the approach you have tried is definitely to be discouraged imho, and mixes up two different things into one way. As a longer term discussion I am interested in morphing the 'multi-polygon' relation into a 'polygon' relation so it can be used as an alternative ways of defining areas. The relation would need to allow a number of linear features to form the boundary of the area. The relation would then hold the tags that are associated with the area (in this case 'landuse=grass'). The relation could also be able to refer to zero or more 'inner' areas which can be defined in a similar way to define 'holes' in polygons. This approach allows a single 'edge' to be part of a number of areas (I gave the example of the edge of a park also being the boundary for the borough in a previous post). Currently the approach of using boundary:left=Ipswich for part of the boundary is not compatible with have a single way defining the area of the park. I am also advocating that we dump the current boundary left: and right: tagging in favour of using the 'boundary' relation for boundaries. I might come up with a technical demonstrator for this in the near future so explore how it might work in practice. There is more discussion on polygons and relations here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Talk:Relation:multipolygon And the boundary relation here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Boundaries If this approach was used we would be able to run with both coding systems in the short term and possibly then deprecate ways being used for areas and boundaries in the longer term. Any other thoughts? Am I wasting my time on this idea, or do others see value in it? Is so would it be useful to produce some trial rendering or would someone like to make osmarender or Mapnik handle it? Regards, Peter(Ito) Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
