[OSM-talk] Parking symbols: YUCK!

[Dave Stubbs]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Robert (Jamie) Munro <rjmunro at arjam.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> Dave Stubbs wrote:
>  | On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Robert (Jamie) Munro
>  | <rjmunro at arjam.net> wrote:
>  |> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  |>  Hash: SHA1
>  |>
>  |>
>  |>  Tom Hughes wrote:
>  |>  | In message <47C0892E.10708 at frankieandshadow.com>
>  |>  |           David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com> wrote:
>  |>  |
>  |>  |> Unfortunately removing the related node isn't going to work, because
>  |>  |> Mapnik won't then render parking symbols. And it is a lot of work
>  to do
>  |>  |> that.
>  |>  |
>  |>  | I believe it will - as far as I know mapnik has rendered those
>  |>  | symbols for parking areas for some time.
>  |>  |
>  |>  |> Since we have contradictory behaviour in the two renderers we can't
>  |>  |> resolve this automatically unless osmarender can look and see on
>  the fly
>  |>  |> if there is a P node inside the area it is trying to do one for
>  |>  |> automatically.
>  |>  |
>  |>  | I believe it is fundamentally wrong to add nodes which duplicate
>  |>  | areas, although I know it is quite common.
>  |>
>  |>  I agree with this wholeheartedly. 1 item on the ground should be 1 item
>  |>  in the database. What no one else has suggested is that if you really
>  |>  need to put something in the DB twice, then at least use a relationship
>  |>  to link the DB objects together.
>  |>
>  |>  I expect that someone with PostGIS knowledge can construct a query to
>  |>  quickly identify all the parking nodes inside parking areas and produce
>  |>  a list. I'm sure that many of us could write a perl or python script to
>  |>  take this list and delete or relate the nodes.
>  |>
>  |
>  | As of the last planet there are 5881 such nodes. Interestingly there
>  | are one or two car parks with two or three nodes in them.
>  | My hugely overcomplicated postgis query could delete these for mapnik
>  | in about 30 seconds if it was important to do so.
>
>  Can we have a vote on what to do next?
>
>  Options:
>  1. Delete the nodes inside areas, make sure the areas are set
>  access=public and any tagging (e.g. car park name) is copied across.
>  2. Add a relationship between car park nodes and the area they are in
>  and do nothing else.
>  3. Add a relationship between car park nodes and the area they are in
>  and change the tagging of the node somehow.
>
>  On that list, my vote would be, in order of preference, 1,3,2
>

You missed option 4:
  - do nothing
and option 5:
  - do nothing to the data and get the renderers etc to sort it out

they're actually effectively the same option.