On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> I wrote this patch, so such ugly constructs are no longer needed and >> should be removed from our data. So it is counter-productive to add >> support for this "feature". > > If you define advanced multipolygons to allow this then it is no longer > ugly but "specified behaviour" ;-) - but as I said, I'm not fond of > touching rings either, it was someone else who stuffed that into the > Wiki against my advice.
We need to separate two cases: Touching outer polygons should be considered ugly and if there is a outer style border running through the area --> Fine, looks a bit ugly, hopefully will get fixed :-) Touching inner polygons are different. When I implemented inner polygons I thought that is not necessary, but creating e.g. the wood with beach and water inside without touching requires a very complicated way of tagging the ways (which BTW is not yet supported by JOSM, as JOSM uses every way once only). 3 different inner ways and 2 inner multipolygons compared to 2 inner touching ways, so that from my point of view touching inner ways are a must have (if the have different features only). >> I also would like to see the feature to handle >> old style multipolygons removed (inner and outer with the same tags) as >> this would provide an incentive to change these polygons to the new tagging >> scheme. > > As map renderers, we have to educate mappers to do the right thing, but > also we have to try to make the best maps from the material available. I JOSM already warns about this old style construct and thus hopefully causes mappers to fix inner ways. I wait for the day when both renderers implement the advanced multipolygons well and I can start warning about tagged outer ways :-) > think that removing support for old-style polygons would be premature. > We should also try to get not too far out of touch with Mapnik. The > thing I hate most about multipolygons is the idea that certain rings > need to be clockwise or counter-clockwise. This pops up every so often > and I always say it is rubbish and then people produce some strange > example where it really makes a difference ;-) I hope we've now got rid > of these cases once and for all. I did not even think about the direction of the ways. And Java also did not. Is there really a reason for way direction except for large structures like oceans (where you by definition cannot decide whats inner and outer otherwise)? Ciao -- http://www.dstoecker.eu/ (PGP key available) _______________________________________________ Tilesathome mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tilesathome
