ian.dees at gmail.com
Wed Sep 30 01:34:33 BST 2009
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Peter Körner <osm-lists at mazdermind.de>wrote:
>>> > And I believe it has
>>> > been suggested to use boundary relations rather than polygons in cases
>>> > where there are a lot of overlapping boundaries.
>>> Yes, I'ts not good to have overlapping ways - they are a mess to edit
>>> and they can be constructed by relations, as well.
>> I've been hoping someone would strike up a conversation with me on a good
>> algorithm to find and relation-ize overlapping boundary ways. I would love
>> to implement this...
> Can we assume the shared ways use shared nodes? I was planning on making
> that assumption, because I believe it's true for the particular data I'm
> trying to import. Without that assumption, it's probably too much work for
> the time I have.
No. In most cases the ways do not share nodes. Almost all of the time, the
overlapping ways share node locations.
e.g.: Two neighboring square country borders: one with nodes a,b,c,d and one
with nodes w,x,y,z:
| | |
Nodes b and w are exactly overlapping, but are part of two different ways.
> In any case, I have to worry about converting the multipolygons from the
> shapefile I have first. I'm pretty sure there are some, in the standard
> "holes go clockwise" format, and shp2osm doesn't handle that as far as I can
My Java version of shp-to-osm handled this automatically. It appears to me
that the shapefile format follows the same model we do: clockwise for outer
rings and anti-clockwise for inner rings (e.g. "holes").
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dev