> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 1:11 PM, "Marc Schütz" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Doesn't layer=-1 mean that something should be 'below' the landuse > >> polygons when rendering? So if you have a river at level=-1 on a > >> landuse=farm, then you will never see the river because it's under the > >> (default layer=0) ground. > >> > > > > No, landuse isn't a physical feature, but a logical one. Renderers > should always draw landuse areas below all other things. > > OK, let's use something non-landuse like natural=forest or > leisure=park as an example then - if you have a forest at layer 0 and > a stream at layer -1, would you expect to see the stream? >
Well, a forest and a park are landuse too, right? Even if not, renderers will still have to treat them as such and draw them below everything else. > We could also consider a bridge with a forest on top (e.g. I remember > there being one in Newcastle), which should probably obliterate any > layer=0 road that goes under the bridge. Ok, you really found an example where it doesn't work :-P Even here you could argue that everything that goes under the bridge should be modelled as a (compound) tunnel object, where you would want to draw the roads dashed. But I'm not sure about this one. Regards, Marc -- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
