[OSM-talk] Mapping Qs: Hotel Complex? Beach? Enclosed Woodland?

Andy Allan gravitystorm at gmail.com
Wed Aug 22 13:00:38 BST 2007


On 8/22/07, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike
> Currently, for Osmarender, layer needs to be an integer between -5 and +5.
> But that shouldn't stop you adding layer=-10 if it suits you :)
>
> Ideally it shouldn't be necessary to use layer in this way at all since all
> landuse and probably all areas should always be rendered before any river or
> other natural features.
>
> However, we are missing any kind of specification of priority for
> overlapping landuse elements.  Should we just say that the render order is
> residential, commercial, industrial,... or should the render order be
> undefined, so that layer= has to be used explicitly, or should the default
> order be alphabetical?
>
> Or maybe some smarter method, like smaller areas that are completely
> enclosed by larger areas get rendered later?

I'd prefer landuse areas to overlap only when a given coordinate had
both landuses - e.g. shops with flats above. I wouldn't want a given
coordinate to be within overlapping landuse=residential and
landuse=industrial if there are no houses in that area.

When it comes to rendering, maybe render landuses semi-transparent, or
speckled? That way, say a green residential area and blue commercial
would have a distinct colour where they overlap?

Also, layer= should be kept only for physically vertically separate
things, and not bodged to make things render above or below something
else.

Cheers,
Andy

> 80n
>
>
> On 8/22/07, Michael Collinson <mike at ayeltd.biz> wrote:
> > At 11:20 AM 8/22/2007, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > > >> Surely for the buildings and grounds, being able to make them part
> > > >> of a
> > > >> larger hotel 'entity' would be ideal...
> > > >
> > > > Maybe a tag for marking "lot" or "parcel".
> > >
> > >I've been toying with the idea of using "landuse" but that would then
> > >clash with a "landuse=residential" created for the area of the whole
> > >village.
> >
> > I've been playing with using
> > "landuse=residential" for large areas digitised
> > from landsat + "layer=-10" so that I can put
> > other specific smaller industrial, commercial,
> > retail areas over the top as I identify them. I
> > use a large negative number so that (hopefully)
> > other features such as rivers, tunnels, parks
> > will also appear over the top with no change.
> >
> > Likewise I'm also experimenting with esoteric
> > landuse= tags for micro-mapping.  There seems to
> > be a general need emerging from a number of
> > threads to distinguish an actual physical
> > building from the grounds of the same building. Examples.
> >
> > tourism=hotel, building=hotel   (node or area)
> > landuse=resort or landuse=hotel (larger area)
> >
> > tourism=attraction, historic=castle, building=castle, name=...
> > landuse=castle or something more general
> >
> > amenity=place_of_worship, building=place_of_worship, religion=...
> > landuse=cemetery (has a burial area) or
> > landuse=place_of_worship (no burial area)
> >
> > building=club_house
> > leisure=golf_course
> >
> > Oh, and yes, I also like the idea of some sort of
> > general "lot" or "parcel" or parcel tag.  The
> > NSW, Australia mapping agency shows them on their
> > 1:50,000 maps as I recall - it is useful
> > particularly in areas where you have just a few
> > buildings in a semi´-rural landscape.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > talk mailing list
> > talk at openstreetmap.org
> >
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>




More information about the talk mailing list