2013/9/23 Kai Krueger <[email protected]> wrote: > Indirectly it is a question of tagging schemas.
To me this is actually indirectly a question of a proper area type! See e.g. "Towards an Area Datatype for OSM" from Jochen at SOTM http://lanyrd.com/2013/sotm/scpkrr/ --Stefan 2013/9/23 Kai Krueger <[email protected]> > "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]"-2 wrote > > Anyway, this thread was not started to debate tagging schemes, the > > question I (and others) wanted to discuss here is this: > > Given the data that are currently in the database, how should osm2pgsql > > handle the import to get as much as possible multipolygons right? > > Indirectly it is a question of tagging schemas. With osm2pgsql being the > tool used in the default map rendering on osm.org and the prevalence of > "tagging for the renderer" decisions on how it handles multipolygons will > (and imho to a limited degree should) influence how people tag and what > they > perceive as correct tagging. Therefore it is important that there is a > consensus of what the correct tagging schema is and make sure that is > correctly supported by osm2pgsql. That is also why I think having this > discussion on talk, rather than on github or the dev list is appropriate. > > We need to come to a consensus between all of the main tools (at least iD, > P2, JOSM, osm2pgsql, osrm, ...) and the mappers to what the preferred, > encouraged and supported standard for tagging multi-polygons is and make > sure that all documentation is in line with this. > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/osm2pgsql-multipolygon-parsing-tp5778300p5778654.html > Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
