[OSM-dev] proposal to kill areas

[Nigel Magnay]

On 20/07/06, Etienne <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure that the constraint that the start and end should be the same
> node is either necessary or always appropriate.
>
> Consider that you are mapping just one side of a large lake.  The need to
> join up the two loose ends creates an artifact in the database that is not
> true.  They will eventually join up but you may not be able to complete the
> task all in one session.
>

Wouldn't you just keep those as segments until you had mapped the
area, and then create the way (area) at that point? Or create a way
for 'lake edge', and gradually expand it until it was an area?

> Additionally, when serving up content within a bbox there may well be areas
> that are only partially within the bbox.  Incidentally, Osmarender/SVG seems
> to cope with this situation quite well (not sure whether this is by accident
> or design).
>

Actually, it's worse than that; for a given bbox area there may be
areas whose segments don't even intersect the bbox, but should be
displayed rendered (for example, displaying a section of map that's
inside a large forest area).


> Etienne
>
>
> On 7/20/06, 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
> storage.
>
> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> dev mailing list
> dev at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
>