[OSM-talk] osmarender and rivers (mapnik too?)

[80n]

The change in river width in Osmarender was not intentional.  The previous
river widths should be reinstated.  I don't have a lot of time to do it at
the moment, but if it's not already been done by the time I get around to
it, then I will reinstate the previous settings myself.

80n

On 10/1/07, David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com> wrote:
>
> On 01/10/2007 16:31, Jon Bright wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > David Earl wrote:
> >>
> >> Could osmarender (manik too?) be changed to choose either one of
> >> several possible widths or a varying width depending on a width or
> >> estimated_width (or similar) tag if such exists?
> >
> > Wouldn't this cause odd-looking effects at the join between two rivers
> > of different widths?
>
> I doubt it at the join: after all, streams joining rivers are OK now.
>
> But as it changes along the way it might have an occasional step. But it
> looks much more odd the way it is now IMO.
>
>
> > In general, wouldn't it be better to make ways of
> > the river banks, so it's possible to exactly define the width of a river
> > at any given point?
>
> Given all the time in the world, perhaps. But (a) most of us will only
> be able to estimate the width, (b) for clarity, the rendered width will
> probably still want to be exaggerated to some extent at most zoom levels
> and (c) it adds to the complexity of preparing the map, when a simple
> polyline is quite adequate for all but really wide rivers - indeed the
> ones that would benefit from the river bank approach are the ones that
> the current rendering width is appropriate for.
>
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20071001/c8f5779f/attachment.html>