[OSM-talk] osm2pgsql multipolygon parsing

[Stefan Keller]

2013/9/23 Kai Krueger <kakrueger at gmail.com> wrote:
> Indirectly it is a question of tagging schemas.

To me this is actually indirectly a question of a proper area type!
See e.g. "Towards an Area Datatype for OSM" from Jochen at SOTM
http://lanyrd.com/2013/sotm/scpkrr/

--Stefan


2013/9/23 Kai Krueger <kakrueger at gmail.com>

> "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]"-2 wrote
> > Anyway, this thread was not started to debate tagging schemes, the
> > question I (and others) wanted to discuss here is this:
> > Given the data that are currently in the database, how should osm2pgsql
> > handle the import to get as much as possible multipolygons right?
>
> Indirectly it is a question of tagging schemas. With osm2pgsql being the
> tool used in the default map rendering on osm.org and the prevalence of
> "tagging for the renderer" decisions on how it handles multipolygons will
> (and imho to a limited degree should) influence how people tag and what
> they
> perceive as correct tagging. Therefore it is important that there is a
> consensus of what the correct tagging schema is and make sure that is
> correctly supported by osm2pgsql. That is also why I think having this
> discussion on talk, rather than on github or the dev list is appropriate.
>
> We need to come to a consensus between all of the main tools (at least iD,
> P2, JOSM, osm2pgsql, osrm, ...) and the mappers to what the preferred,
> encouraged and supported standard for tagging multi-polygons is and make
> sure that all documentation is in line with this.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/osm2pgsql-multipolygon-parsing-tp5778300p5778654.html
> Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20130924/16d98601/attachment.html>