2009/2/4 Knut Arne Bjørndal <[email protected] <bob%[email protected]>>
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 12:37:50PM +0100, Chris-Hein Lunkhusen wrote: > > D Tucny schrieb: > > > > > <http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=51.912&lon=7.737&zoom=16> > > > > > > But the stream is tagged as layer -1, so is underground as landuse > > > > will assume 0 (but render behind other layer 0 objects). > > > > > > Yes, streams are often tagged as -1 so that they are rendered > > > under streets. In Wiki there is also the recommendation to > > > tag waterways as -1. > > > > > > So landuse should never cover other objects. > > > Landuse should be assumed as layer -100. ;-) > > Virtual landuse things like residential and industrial are done at -5 > (the lowest layer osmarender processes). > > The practice of always tagging waterways as -1 sound stupid to me, the > layer tag is meant to describe where something is in relation to the > normal earth surface, and I'd say most streams are _at_ that height, > not (significantly) below it. > > > > I thought there was a discussion about this at some point in the past > > > and that the outcome was that the feeling was that landuse should be > > > drawn first, though allowing layers within the landuse 'layer' then > > > other features drawn over whatever the outcome of the landuse layer > > > was... which, would be effectively the same as making landuse > > > effectively exist at -100 to -90... > > > Can't remember the details, but will try and find the mails... > > > > It makes no sense that a "virtual" object like landuse > > covers any "real" object like streams or whatever, no matter > > what the layer is. > > As forests are physical objects they are drawn in the normal order. > While forests are physical objects, they are drawn to represent an area, an area that could have objects running through it below the level of the surrounding land, tunnels, being a good example, but, I'd argue that water is lower too, unless you're at sea or are dealing with an aquaduct... I don't believe a forest should render over the top of a tunnel, I don't think it shouldn't obliterate any lower layer features, I believe it should just be drawn as a background layer... I have an example of a road tunnel running under a range of wooded hills, along the hills are footpaths, the tunnel passes under the woods and footpaths... The tunnel is tagged as tunnel=yes, layer=-1, the woods are tagged as natural=wood, no layer, the footpath is tagged as highway=footway, no layer... I don't think it would be the 'right thing' to tag the woods as layer -2 in this case just to make it render 'right' in the osmarender layer... So, I'd support forests and woods and marshes/wetlands/whatever the current accepted tag for them is that are also used to represent potentially large areas to also follow the same 'draw first' rule that landuse areas use... d
_______________________________________________ Tilesathome mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tilesathome
