[Talk-GB] Rendering of layers

Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com
Thu Jan 21 12:24:21 UTC 2016


I'm not sure Reading is good, it's just a different approach.

Buildings (and indeed most areas) are typically rendered below lines, for
various practical reasons. So maybe it is better to think of building as
the ground-coverage, rather than the usable floor (or roof).

You might want to put covered=yes on the lines as they pass underneath
(this is what is done for covered walkways between buildings, for
instance). But anything is likely to be a compromise. Look at other
stations and see what seems to work best.

Richard

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Stuart Reynolds <
stuart at travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:

> Personally I think that Reading is cheating.
>
> The outline that is called the railway station “building” includes the
> ticket halls, the bridge, and the platform surfaces to the extent that
> these stick out of the bridge area. I don’t agree with this - the last time
> I looked, a platform wasn’t a building; it is a platform. I would expect
> this to be a site relation - and in fact, Euston appears to be mapped that
> way, so it doesn’t look like I’m a million miles out with that thought.
>
> Next, the individual “platforms" have been mapped as edges alongside the
> satellite-visible parts of the platform areas. The platforms in OSM don’t
> extend under the footbridge - when in reality they do. Again, at Euston the
> platforms are areas (split in half to allow tagging of each platform
> number). Yes the bridge at Reading is marked as a bridge, which it allows
> it to go over the tracks. But it really is a bridge at Reading. At Gatwick
> it is a whole building over the tracks.
>
> So, to me, Reading looks like it has been mapped for the renderer, rather
> than representing what is physically on the ground.
>
> Regards
> Stuart
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Stuart Reynolds
> for traveline south east & anglia
>
>
>
> On 21 Jan 2016, at 10:34, Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Compare Reading - are you mapping a roof or a groundplan, or a pedestrian
> bridge?
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Stuart Reynolds <
> stuart at travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I made a number of adjustments around the transport terminus at Gatwick
>> Airport South Terminal yesterday. When this was first mapped, what is
>> actually three buildings (the railway station, the covered travelators from
>> the bus station & car parks, and the southern stairs from the railway
>> platforms) were all mapped as one building, and the platforms were
>> “inserts” into the gaps rather than being the continuous entities that they
>> are. So I have separated those all out, and made the platforms a continuous
>> block. I also added internal escalators and travelators, although that is
>> immaterial to the question that I’m about to ask.
>>
>> The buildings are all mapped as layer=1, and the platforms without any
>> layer tag (which should default them to layer=0, AFAIK). So why are the
>> platforms and rail tracks (which I haven’t touched) been rendered over the
>> buildings, rather than under them?
>>
>> See http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.15634/-0.16124
>>
>> Thanks
>> Stuart
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>> Stuart Reynolds
>> for traveline south east & anglia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20160121/3bf6c433/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list