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

Mike Collinson mike at ayeltd.biz
Wed Aug 22 21:27:58 BST 2007

I've had a good think and for me personally, yes, a render order of residential, commercial, industrial, retail (and then any more esoteric types not yet defined) would work very well.  I sketch in "residential areas", i.e. urban areas that are most likely to be residential. Commercial area are often hard to define specifically without in depth local knowledge of an area so are good next.  Industrial areas are usually easy to delimit.  Same with retail but as generally small, are good at the top.

And I assume that layer= would still override any pre-defined order should any folks want to do that.

I take Andy's later point about using layers to represent actually physical layering but I've taken the old graphics trick of simply layering smaller features over the top of larger features a la a cricket pitch inside a park.  I don't have any fixed view about which is best.

Oh, and meantime, I shall stop layer inflation, -5 will suit me well!


At 01:24 PM 22/08/2007, 80n wrote:
>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?
>On 8/22/07, Michael Collinson <<mailto:mike at ayeltd.biz>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
>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)
>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.
>talk mailing list
><mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20070822/ecd35f7f/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list