[talk-ph] Tagging convention: names for city, municipal and barangay halls

Eugene Alvin Villar seav80 at gmail.com
Fri Jun 3 13:47:52 BST 2011


If you just need the geometric center of a town or city, I agree that
there is no need to add a point for that.

The renderers can already place labels in the geometric center. For
example, the main OSM map style Mapnik already does this. See this
example for Obando, Bulacan <http://osm.org/go/4zL__Wce->. As you can
see, there are two labels for Obando, the geometric center to the
upper left which was added automatically, and the manual label to the
lower right which corresponds to where the downtown area is (where the
Obando Church, town plaza, and the college, and the public market is).

However, if you want to create a map like this one for Siquijor
province <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ph_map_siquijor.png>
(warning! the map is outdated. I created it before OSM even existed),
where the town markers are located in the poblacion area, then you
need a node to mark that location. The geometric center isn't useful
for this kind of map at all.

(Hmmm, I think I can recreate the Siquijor map using OSM data now.
Just need to find the time to do it. :-)


On 6/3/11, Jim Morgan <jim at datalude.com> wrote:
> Just to play devil's advocate here ... I guess there's also a case for
> marking a city, village, barangay as the exact geometric centre of the area.
> That would certainly make sense at the lower zoom levels.
>
> Maybe some renderers already do this? In which case, as long as the boundary
> area is tagged, then there's no need for the second, single point to be
> tagged, which saves work.
>
> Jim
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>


-- 
http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com



More information about the talk-ph mailing list