[OSM-talk] Nested areas

[Dirk-Lüder Kreie]

Steve Hill schrieb:

> I don't think areas, such as landuse, natural, etc. should be considered 
> as something physically laid on top of the land - they merely describe the 
> use of the land within them and thus should not obscure other objects any 
> more than the land itself should.
> 
> If the land itself isn't obscuring objects, why should an area tag, which 
> effectively just describes some properties of that land.

I think for rendering landuse should be rendered first (bottom) then 
natural features, then linear features.

And general rule-of-thumb smaller features on top of bigger features.

-- 

Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie
Bremen - 53.0952°N 8.8652°E


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20080606/137bf106/attachment.pgp>