[Talk-GB] Why has City Hall sunk?
jamicuosm at googlemail.com
Thu Oct 15 20:50:33 BST 2009
I cant make up my mind on this one. If a building, fountain, theatre are in
a park, then they are on land that is park and it would be correct to map
the structures on top of land mapped as park.
Its my opinion you shouldn't put structures on top of pedestrian areas, but
its a hell of a lot of work to ask people to create multipolygons for each
object even if the result is a map of higher quality. Hopefully in the
future the mapping software (potlatch, josm, etc) can spot these problems
and suggest then auto create the mulitpolygon for the mapper.
I guess that a mapnik (etc) should should assume that fountains go on top of
pedestrain areas, and more obsessive mappers can go around and find these
'problems' then spend many happy hours creating multipolygons
2009/10/15 Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net>
> I understand your point but that's a very tough standard to achieve. I
> doubt many mappers will bother to produce multipolygons for large public
> squares with many fountains, small buildings, etc. At the very least mapnik
> should treat pedestrian areas like parks.
> 2009/10/15 Jason Cunningham <jamicuosm at googlemail.com>
> The city hall building, the theatre area and the fountain are all mapped as
>> pedestrian areas which is incorrect. We haven't mapped what's on the ground.
>> I think the three non-pedestrian areas should be removed from the pedestrian
>> area, or in other words the pedestrian area needs three holes created with a
>> I don't think the mapnik renderer is at fault here.
>> 2009/10/15 Tom Chance <tom at acrewoods.net>
>>> City Hall isn't showing up on the Mapnik layer, it is tagged as
>>> building=yes and amenity=townhall but only the name shows:
>>> Any ideas?
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB