[OSM-talk] landcover=trees

Lester Caine lester at lsces.co.uk
Sat Aug 15 20:42:17 UTC 2015

On 15/08/15 20:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> For rendering purposes, I would use a fill mainly for the landcover, while the names (and no fill) would come from natural. Landuse would be mainly for specialist maps, but of course this is up to the rendering style devs to ultimately decide.

Having been investigating the 'farmland' problem ... and it is a PROBLEM
... I would tend to agree with that. The local blocks of farmland are a
conglomeration of landcover and changing sections to the ACTUAL cover is
going to be difficult. I do need to delete major blocks, but putting
them back is even harder work. The areas not 'block mapped' have all of
the field structure in place, but no 'farmland' boundary while the
directly adjacent areas have multipolygon structures which can not be
easily isolated to add all the fine detail of field boundaries.

My quick fix for any new rendering is simply to switch off 'farmland' so
that the tree blocks it masks actually display.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/245442613 is an example of the problem,
as are the adjacent areas to the right, while to the left the brown
areas are the local farm yards and the majority of the remaining cover
is farmland. trying to fill that with blocks of landcover is what seems
wrong here ...

Lester Caine - G8HFL
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

More information about the talk mailing list