[OSM-talk] 1) Messy Overlapping 2) Messy Layers 3) Bridges 4) Trunk/primary 5) Forum
Ben Robbins
ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com
Sun Feb 11 15:05:47 GMT 2007
>If things look wrong in the slippy map or your own Osmarender renders,
>don't tag your way around the problems! Report the problems with mapnik and
>osmarender and wait for them to be fixed, but keep the tags in the database
>clean.
Haha..I have many problems that I have made custom solutions for. I agree
though something should be done. I have posted/emailed the ML with most of
them, so I've done the informing, but nothing came of it. If people really
wish to discuss how to sort out some things that don't currently render then
lets go for it.
>For example, golf courses still render as grey blobs in mapnik. I might be
>tempted to add 'leisure=park'
I agree people shouldn't change a tag to something else just to get it to
render, if that is not what the area actually is. But for the layering at
the junction I wasn't changing any tags, just adding an additional one.
Would it even be posible to make osmarender not do this? The situations
where it happens are not really any exception to other junctions so how
could a renderer tell them apart?. Maybe if a way's end node has an
additional way connecting to it wich contains the trunk_link (or other) tag
on it, then the link shouldn't have a rounded end.
>If you can think of a good way to represent bridges without making the map
>features schema horribly complex
I use landuse=none wich already exsisted, and then landuse=bridge_end for
the ends. I don't really think the landuse=bridge_end is really the correct
key but just ignore that at the sec. It isn't omplex for shore
>propose it on the wiki
There are many things propsed on the wiki. Things are being added quicker
than they are resolved. I also find there are too few people giving an
opinion in order to keep things logical. Once some other tags start moving
I will add more. Some tags appear the day after people join osm and lack
conformaty, while others have a lot of thourght, yet they sit in the same
queue not really progressing.
>I certainly spent quite a while in Inkscape to get these:
I like to get everything complete in the initial render. That way I know
that the osm data is what holds the information, not just a render I edited.
>I can't actually think of any particularly odd bridges. Do you have any
>photos / maps of examples?
3 examples come to mind (although my area isn't known for its wide vareity
of bridges, so I'm shore better examples exsist). 1 is where 2 bridges
merge midway when crossing a road in Woodford Halse. The other is again a
merging bridge between 2 dismantled railway lines. One fork of the bridge
goes over the river at a long angle and therfore to render correctly the 2
black bridge end lines need to render off set longways. The 3rd is here >
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g226/ben_robbins_/DoubleBridge.png
There are 2 parrelel bridge, but the 2 bridges are built as 1 with a
rectangular hole down the center.
There is also a difference between status of bridges that I feal isnt
represented in the brdige=yes rendering. Ford's, or genrally flat crossing
shouln't really have the diagnoal lines extrude out at the ends. The
diagonal lines suggest the bridge is lifted well above what passes beneath
it. Therefore just have parrellel dark lines either side of a way when it
crosses a ford seems more symbolically correct to me.
I don't have photos of any of them sadly...I will take some next time I go
to where they are.
>Why would there be a bridge without some kind of path/road/rail across it?
>:o)
Abondoned bridges... but that doesn't really matter, the bridge=yes tag
could stand alone. That wasn't my critism.
Ben
_________________________________________________________________
Have you tried Windows Live Spaces? Tell us what you think!
https://www.msnfeedback.com/perseus/surveys/961278308/6653c632.htm
More information about the talk
mailing list