[OSM-talk] Wood & Park mapnik carto anomaly?
Dave F.
davefox at madasafish.com
Wed Sep 17 14:33:32 UTC 2014
On 16/09/2014 19:55, Paul Norman wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2014, at 06:33 AM, "Dave F." <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
>
>> On 16/09/2014 13:41, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
>> > In general, we render smaller landuse on top of larger landuse.
>>
>> I find it surprising something as arbitrary as size is used as the
>> defining factor. Comparing actual tags would surely make more sense.
>
> As a recent bug
> (https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/950) has
> shown, it's important to have *some* well-defined ordering in cases
> where the ordering could make a visual distinction,
I wouldn't describe size based ordering as 'well defined'.
> or the rendered result is undefined and potentially not deterministic.
> This can lead to subtle bugs with clipped labels.
Hard to tell from the small graphic, but this doesn't appear to be an
ordering problem.
>
> The two criteria are OSM ID and area. The first is truly arbitrary
> being a computer-assigned number, while the second is well-founded and
> is the standard way to order within a layer.
>
> What you're more interested in is why are parks and trees both in the
> same landuse layer. It would certainly simplify the SQL
> (https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/project.yaml#L102)
> to split it up into different tags, but the problem is there is no
> universally acceptable ordering of tags. You've pointed at a case
> where it'd be good to have trees on top of parks, but I can point to
> cases where parks should be on top of trees.
Please do, I'd be interested to see them.
Cheers
Dave F.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20140917/bcbe4982/attachment.html>
More information about the talk
mailing list