[OSM-talk] Fwd: Local map making - truncating ways on boundary?

[Karl Newman]

Forgot to reply-all.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Karl Newman <siliconfiend at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Local map making - truncating ways on boundary?
To: Dirk-Lüder Kreie <osm-list at deelkar.net>


On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Dirk-Lüder Kreie <osm-list at deelkar.net>
wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Karl Newman schrieb:
>
> | If OSM had a polygon type, or if every closed way was guaranteed to have
> a
> | "area=yes" tag, then we could deal with tiling in a generic way, but
> since
> | it doesn't (who knows why... I believe all professional GIS systems
> do, for
> | a good reason)
>

>
There are closed ways that are not areas.
>

Yes, I meant to say if every *polygon* which is represented as a closed way
was guaranteed to have an "area=yes" tag or some other distinguishing
feature.


> And the reason for the area type not there is because it has not been
> used when it was there.
>

> up to now it just has been simpler for most cases to just use closed
> ways and tag them appropriately.
>
>
Really? I never knew OSM had a polygon type. I can't believe it went unused.
It would certainly simplify things, as I've demonstrated... I know OSM is
all about "no rules" but in my experience, just the right amount of rules
can make you really productive.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20080404/8ed26f0b/attachment.html>