[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Sun Jan 30 11:56:40 GMT 2011


On 30 January 2011 21:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a method of trying to extract useful data from an undefined
> state making assumptions, but it is IMHO not how we should design our
> data model. This would also mean that even with complete data for the
> whole world, you would need endless processing if you wanted to
> estimate the area covered by sand: for every area tagged surface=sand
> you would only know it's real extension after subtracting all other
> polygons with different surface-values (or with an assumed different
> surface).
>
> You also seem to reduce this to a rendering problem.
>
> There can also be cases where a bigger polygon overlaps for a small
> part a smaller polygon.

None of which is an issue, you can sort and display the information
however you like, however in general it is a rendering problem and the
way that was solved was to put the smaller polygons on top of the
bigger ones which seems like a reasonable way to handle things to me.



More information about the Tagging mailing list