Couldn't this be a test case for the validator plugin? I think checking this case and maybe automatic fixing could be done with it.
Jiri Klement schrieb: >>> Yes, it's workaround and if rendering rules stayed the same as now, it >>> will be unnecessary. But I was thinking I will add support for more >>> features applicable to both nodes and areas. For example big >>> place_of_worship is usually tagged as both node and area. If I change >>> rendering rules to add area symbol, I'll get thousands of churches >>> with two icons. >> Then the solution is again to fix the data, imho. > > I don't really like the idea of changing so much data, but you're > probably right. Fixing the data is the right way to go. > >>>> Point-in-polygon is not all that simple, it's definitely not cheap >>>> (pretty much no matter how you implement it). >>> I think it's quite cheap. You get points in boundbox, it should be >>> just one XPath query. Then you make horizontal line going through >>> every point and count number of intersections with area edges. If the >>> number is odd, then point is inside of polygon. >> I think it's something like O(n^2) plus a bit with n being the number >> of nodes in the polygon. That's not my idea of cheapness. > > You can just say if there is more than 10 nodes in bounding box, then > it's almost sure one of them is inside. Anyway as said above I will > implement only label relation. > > > What do you think about allowing more than one label/object in relation? > _______________________________________________ Tilesathome mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tilesathome
