[OSM-talk] Render icons for parking areas
Mario Salvini
salvini at t-online.de
Wed Dec 19 15:24:16 GMT 2007
you are totally right! a service-highway with onway=yes if needed is the
best and simplest way todo :)
mario
Michael Collinson schrieb:
> Or just connect the parking area (or node if really tiny or
> unsurveyed size) to the road with a highway=service and use
> oneway=yes if appropriate. Simple, requires no extra tags and renders
> out with current renderers.
>
> Mike
>
> At 07:04 PM 12/18/2007, Mario Salvini wrote:
>
>> Hi Gregory,
>>
>> good idea, but lets make it that way:
>>
>> tag the node: "area_access" + "direction= in/out/both" (where "both" is
>> defaut if "direction" is not set)
>>
>>
>> mario
>>
>>
>> Gregory schrieb:
>>
>>> In that case you might aswell propose area_exit=yes too.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/12/2007, *Mario Salvini* <salvini at t-online.de
>>> <mailto:salvini at t-online.de>> wrote:
>>>
>>> How about a TAG "area_entrance=yes" to mark the possibilities to
>>> enter
>>> e.g. a parking-area?
>>>
>>>
>>> mario
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregory schrieb:
>>> > I knew about the work around that required us to add an area and a
>>> > node. I lot of the time I've been placing that extra node closer to
>>> > the entrance of the car park (really useful when the area is
>>> alongside
>>> > more than one road), sometimes I use a node in the way.
>>> >
>>> > I think it would be better for us to move to more sensible data,
>>> the
>>> > way we're currently doing is like two carparks (one a node and
>>> one an
>>> > area).
>>> > What if it was proposed/passed that a relationship connect the
>>> node to
>>> > the area but keep rendering how it is. Then after some time when
>>> more
>>> > nodes are related to their area than seperate, renderers can be
>>> > updated to do as suggested.
>>> > "It should certainly be possible to use a relationship to
>>> > associate your node with your area, and then have the automatic
>>> > icon-drawer only draw an icon at the centre of gravity if there
>>> isn't
>>> > an applicable node associated with the area via a relationship."
>>> -Abi
>>> >
>>> > So even if we don't use the relationship for a long time, it's
>>> surley
>>> > best to look the future and the best way for things to be done?
>>> > I would also propose some sort of public=yes/no/customers tag.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Gregory
>>> > nomoregrapes at gmail.com <mailto:nomoregrapes at gmail.com>
>>> <mailto:nomoregrapes at gmail.com <mailto:nomoregrapes at gmail.com>>
>>> > http://www.livingwithdragons.com < http://www.livingwithdragons.com>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > talk mailing list
>>> > talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
>>> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>>> <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gregory
>>> nomoregrapes at gmail.com <mailto:nomoregrapes at gmail.com>
>>> http://www.livingwithdragons.com
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>
More information about the talk
mailing list