[OSM-dev] proposal to kill areas
nigel.magnay at gmail.com
Thu Jul 20 17:54:51 BST 2006
And as I hit send, I notice I have perfectly described many ringroads,
which aren't areas.
So I think it does require an 'area=true'
On 20/07/06, Nigel Magnay <nigel.magnay at gmail.com> wrote:
> IMO - Sounds to me like an area is a subclass of way, with the
> constraint that the start and end node must be the same. The API
> should enforce this, but it doesn't neccesarily require separate
> On 20/07/06, Immanuel Scholz <immanuel.scholz at gmx.de> wrote:
> > > There are only 4 areas in OSM and osmarender treats certain tagged ways
> > > as an area. I figure it'd make the server simpler and make client area
> > > support simpler if 'area=true' on a way made it in to an area.
> > >
> > > Functionally, if they were working, an area is identical to a way
> > > already.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > I am not very happy with an area defined as it is currently.
> > The problem I see is, that there are too many possibilities to specify an
> > ill-formed area.
> > I have no problem with deleting the 4 areas (probably test areas anyway?),
> > skip out the area feature from the server for now and maybe reopen the
> > brain storming for a different data structure solution.
> > Even if the current data structure is kept, I dislike the idea of
> > specifying an "area" as a parametrized kind of way.
> > Ciao, Imi
> > _______________________________________________
> > dev mailing list
> > dev at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
More information about the dev