[Tagging] tagging the multipolygon model (was landuse and military)
sly (sylvain letuffe)
liste at letuffe.org
Thu Oct 15 17:43:42 BST 2009
On jeudi 15 octobre 2009, Pieren wrote:
> Are you suggesting that when a landuse is inside another landuse, we
> just don't use a multipolygon relation and don't care if the big is
> overlapping the small ?
Not suggesting, exploring solutions. I'm probably missing elements, but I feel
it could be possible, and a much lower burden on mappers.
But, yes. Explore the idea of putting an end to inner polygons when something
exist in this inner.
> But we are not modelling the reality in this case.
why not ?
"(the matrix) It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you
from the truth."
what if the truth should be considered a derivate from the osm database ? A
filter ? If well define, the modeling would contain reality. (And ease
> If someone or some
> software requests only a certain type of landuse, it will get a full
> polygone without any hole which is not correct.
> By doing this, you
> force all softwares to ask for all data and make complex calculations
> just to find what has to be excluded.
exact, but not "just to find", in the main goal to ease mapping.
> I'm usually not a supporter of
> 'tagging for the software'
Yeah, you surprise me ;-)
But my point is also toward another consideration :
Mappers will tend to walk that way, and nothing can stop them. You can't force
a mapper to add a thousand small lake in a forest to an inner polygon. Let's
now ease our pain and accept it. software are allready forced to do some
calculation (order in mapnik rendering)
PS: pieren arguing for relation while sly is arguing against, the world is
upside down ;-) !
Sylvain Letuffe liste at letuffe.org
qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org
More information about the Tagging