[OSM-talk] displayed width of roads
Steve Chilton
S.L.Chilton at mdx.ac.uk
Wed Feb 20 10:53:02 GMT 2008
For mapnik rendering I was thinking of moving tram and light_rail to a
new rendering layer which would be placed just after roads and thus draw
them after roads - which is probably the norm.
Cheers
STEVE
Steve Chilton, Learning Support Fellow
Learning and Technical Support Unit Manager
School of Health and Social Sciences
Middlesex University
phone/fax: 020 8411 5355
email: steve8 at mdx.ac.uk
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/schools/hssc/staff/profiles/technical/chiltons.asp
Chair of the Society of Cartographers: http://www.soc.org.uk/
SoC conference 2008:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/cartographers08/
-----Original Message-----
From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Colin Marquardt
Sent: 19 February 2008 22:00
To: talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] displayed width of roads
"Dave Stubbs" <osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk> writes:
> On Feb 18, 2008 11:21 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> > > By co-incidence, I was in contact with another mapper who's been
doing
>> > > something like this to make low zoom osmarender rendering a bit
>> > > prettier. What's everybody's opinion of this kind of practice? Is
it
>> > > not an example of compromising the data (which we want to endure)
to
>> > > work around a temporary deficiency in one particular renderer?
>> >
>> > If the slip roads are not really underneath the other roads then
>> > yes it is definitely wrong (IMHO). The layer tag is meant to
describe
>> > the physical ordering of the roads on the ground.
>>
>> I've had a similar situation on the talk-de list where some people
>> seem to have started adding layer=1 to tram tracks. I don't like this
>> all that much (a bridge leading over a road with tram tracks would
>> then need to be layer=2 etc) but it's hard to argue with them since
>> the tram tracks *are* on top of the road. The layer tag doesn't say
by
>> how much...
>
> People take things written down too seriously, I'd argue that if a
> human being can step over it it doesn't count (at a bare minimum).
> I'm sure they think this too but just want tram tracks to appear above
> roads, which is probably a sensible idea, but this isn't the way to go
> about it.
We had discussed this on IRC, and while jburgess and steve8 say it's
possible to modify osm2pgsql/Mapnik to always draw railways on top of
highways (unless the layer tag says otherwise), people had objections
because then some railways close to, but not *in* highways, might
obstruct the highways (and possibly the name), and the highways were
seen as more important.
jburgess says it might be possible to separate out trams and light_rails
from all the other railway tags and only raise these in z-order, but who
knows if this is enough... Another suggestion (from Sfan00) was having
another tag for such "in street" railways.
Cheers
Colin
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
More information about the talk
mailing list