2009/2/16 Knut Arne Bjørndal <[email protected]>: > > You want to tag things correctly, yet call every road going beneath a > building built over a road a tunnel? That's a perfect example of > tagging for the renderer if you ask me.
nope, it is the only way right now to put the datum into the system that the building is over the road, but the road is not interupted >> > Or accurately mapping the pedestrian streets in >> > Edinburgh, Scotland (and some other old European cities, I assume) >> > that are only just wide enough for two broad-shouldered adults to >> > pass? >> >> well those for example I would not consider pedestrian but footway >> (and bicycle=yes if applies), but anyway they would display better in >> mapnik-rendering-order (the one I'm suggesting for t...@h as well) than >> in current t...@h. > > Given a very small street in between buildings, not an uncommon thing > in old cities, the current rendering with casings that (for an > apparently unsolvable technical reason) go outside the exact > boundaries of the building will in some cases swallow the street so > much that it ends up being hard to see. actually it is very little, that the casing go outside, and if this little is a problem, and the casings can in no way be modified to extent just to the inside, than maybe getting rid of them in some cases might be the answer. > I prefer knowing where the roads are to knowing the exact shape of > buildings, so imho the current style is better than what you propose. I think that both is important. Of course I don't want streets to be *completely* covered, but this is also impossible when mapped correctly. > You go on and on about how things would be better if we just did it > like mapnik: Prove it by tweaking the rules to be your way and show us > an example rendering, or at the /very/ least provide us with links so > we don't have to go searching for your perfect examples for ourself. I will do in the next time. I like t...@h and gave the mapnik example just one time in this specific case. Links were provided in the opening post. > In case you haven't noticed: Maps are not geographically accurate. well, depends on the scale. They try to be as accurate as possible (and t...@h doesn't have any: "move this street/icon/writing so the grafics get better readable"-feature) > In this instance the fact that we want to make roads wider (which is > needed for them to show up big enough) collide with our desire to draw > buildings in their accurate positions. If I hand-drew the map I'd just > make the buildings slightly smaller to compensate, and make everything > _look_ right, but osmarender can't do that. exactly. I'm completely aware of this, but what I was pointing out was that you still would be able to see the streets if they got slightly overlapped by adjacent buildings, if their name was rendered above but the street itself below. Martin _______________________________________________ Tilesathome mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tilesathome
