[OSM-talk] Problems with Osmarender

[Andy Robinson]

Its looking good Ben.

Cheers

Andy Robinson
Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-
>bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Ben Robbins
>Sent: 26 September 2006 1:45 AM
>To: talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: [OSM-talk] Problems with Osmarender
>
>I've been busy removing all the capital letters, and making ways, and i
>have
>got an area round me rendered off succsefully. its very much W.I.P, and
>paths end randomly at the second.  I have a few problems and a few
>observations though.   I not very good at keepin up with the mailing lists
>cause they drive me nuts, so if this has been discussed and resolved before
>could I have a link (or if there is a wiki page on the matter).
>
>current render:
>http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g226/ben_robbins_/SouthNorthants001.png
>
>(Render Area = min lat:52.066378479668366 min lon:1.1123367258727554 max
>lat:52.15469186349886 max lon:0.9464273343426719)
>
>Problems...
>
>1)  The woods...the green area renders very strangly on the larger areas.
>2)  (hard to make out from render)  A small peice of the trunk road west of
>towcester seems to have a gap in it where the layby is.  Im not shore why
>its doing this.
>3) My dismantled railway seems not to be visable (railway=abandoned)
>4) How can I make a secondary road residential? Or an A road for that
>matter..(e.g. whittlebury)
>5) My rivers sit behind the woods in places, I need to make them visible
>
>obserations...
>
>1) The colour of bridleways is very similar to woods, and they cant be seen
>over the woods.  Footways are relitvely hard to make out also.
>2) The look of paths and tracks from a distance looks the same.  Personally
>i think tracks should be the same as roads, with a lighter border line
>3) leading on from 2... I said this in email a few days ago, but i really
>really supermegareally think there needs to be different track types.  I'll
>make a proposal on the proposed tags bit, unless theres a good reason why
>not to.  But I think the more majour the track the darker the outline,
>until
>black becomes a unclassified road.  there are 5 different sorts of track
>type that I see regually.
>4) I think this image indicates the need for water=stream and
>water=dry_stream (or something similar)...cause my streams are way way
>bigger than they are in reality.
>5)Places that arnt highway=residential that are in the middle of towns are
>current just left as highway=unclassified.  Is there nothing for populated
>areas wich is the business area?  highway=buiness for example?
>
>In a reply from andy (I think), it said that the current way in wich taging
>was done was limited to just specifying the overall feature of a way.
>Rather than being able to stick down its phisical, political and used
>statuses seperately and render them seperately.   Well would it not be
>easier to make different render colours for the various combinations, so
>that I could put ''highway=track_grade5_bridleway'' for example, and then
>''highway=track_grade1_footway'' somewhere else.  there would be quite a
>few
>combinations to define though.
>
>Finally...I'm still so insainly confused as to why ways are being used.
>When i scan down the features list and imagin a 'complete' highstreet, I
>can
>only imagin a street made up of hundreds and hundreds of tiny ways, each
>being 1 segment long.  I'm shore i'm missing something here.
>
>I don't wish to sound like im getting frustrated or anything.  In fact
>today
>has been awesum.. Its the first time Ive actually rendered a map, and its
>sweet as hell.
>
>Oh yeah...finally finally.... There is a page on the wiki where OS faults
>can be put, but i havnt put any, cause there are just soooo many round me.
>There are many many missing lakes, paths in the wrong spots/wrong sides of
>buiuldings, missing cops/woods, misshaped woods, woodland trails that are
>missing/wrong/insianly worng, misasing tracks, tracks that arnt where the
>map says, missing sections of tracks...etcetc... Im not shore how much is
>intentional, but I don't think its worth sticking every mistake into the
>wiki, so I'll just point it out in here, that OS got south-Northants wrong
>in gerneral, or so it would seem.
>
>Right I'm Done...
>Thanks
>Ben
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk