<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">14 dec. 2020 kl. 19:06 skrev Ture Pålsson <<a href="mailto:ture@turepalsson.se" class="">ture@turepalsson.se</a>>:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta charset="UTF-8" class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">I have implemented the merge-adjacent-areas scheme in my renderer. I’ll try to get a demo up… :-)</span><br style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><br style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">Having said that, as a renderer implementer, I have a slight preference for the relation method. It is s implyeasier to join things on numeric id than to join them by adjacency.</span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">I don’t remember whether this has already been mentioned, but it just occurred to me:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">One problem with merging adjacent areas for labelling purposes, is when the areas share no tags, except the name. For example, it is not unusual to have a natural=wetland sharing some boundary with a natural=water, where the name applies to the entire wet area. So you can’t just merge adjacent natuarl=wetland, you also have to remember to merge natural=water with adjacent natural=wetland, if their names match. And natural=riverbank. And landuse=reservoir ( :-) ). And the gods of cartography knows what else.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I am now leaning a bit heavier towards the ”relation” alternative…</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>