>>> To pick a random example:
>>> http://osm.org/go/uG2Mh6iR
>>
>> Oops, sorry for spam, but nearby I spotted a convenient example of the
>> alternative approach: one way that serves as both administrative
>> boundary and river.
>
> Which was one of his points, what if the river isn't the boundary
On 25 August 2010 10:03, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> To pick a random example:
>> http://osm.org/go/uG2Mh6iR
>
> Oops, sorry for spam, but nearby I spotted a convenient example of the
> alternative approach: one way that serves as both administ
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> To pick a random example:
> http://osm.org/go/uG2Mh6iR
Oops, sorry for spam, but nearby I spotted a convenient example of the
alternative approach: one way that serves as both administrative
boundary and river.
http://osm.org/go/uG2MZhcPF-
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Erik G. Burrows wrote:
> 3. Most renderers draw line features on top of polygon features making the
> rendering nicer looking
In practice, having two independent ways actually renders worse,
because they tend to criss-cross each other arbitrarily. In the
Australia
On 24 August 2010 03:48, Erik G. Burrows wrote:
> I think that if we map the park/city/etc boundary as a separate way than
> the river/ridge/etc, we give ourselves greater flexibility over time:
In general this is the conclusion we've come to about Australian
boundaries, keep the boundary separat
Thanks Michael and Liz.
I've been thinking about this for a while, and putting off mapping many of
the streams/rivers in the Sierra Mountains because of this uncertainty.
It seems that there is no general consensus, so I would like to propose
what I think is the best trade-off:
I think that if
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Erik G. Burrows wrote:
> "Australian solution"? I'd like to think we're not applying different
> mapping rules to different countries!
We are, whether it is a good thing or not.
Go back to how we define a cycleway (German vs English)
___
I'd prefer relations. Duplicating the line to offset is borderline
micro-mapping; I don't think micro-mapping is practical in a lot of cases
right now.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Erik G. Burrows wrote:
> >> I have several cases where a border polygon (national park, wilderness,
> >> etc.)
>> What is the preferred way to handle this dual-purpose way?
>
> In some forms of rendering the boundary is rendered instead of the stream
> and
> the water feature disappears on the map.
> The preferred Australian solution is to not reuse the same boundary but to
> duplicate it. This allows all r
>> I have several cases where a border polygon (national park, wilderness,
>> etc.) is defined based on a natural feature, such as a
>> stream/crestline/etc.
>>
>> What is the preferred way to handle this dual-purpose way?
>>
>> Splitting the border way, creating a relation of the border pieces, an
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Erik G. Burrows wrote:
> I have several cases where a border polygon (national park, wilderness,
> etc.) is defined based on a natural feature, such as a
> stream/crestline/etc.
>
> What is the preferred way to handle this dual-purpose way?
>
> Splitting the border way, creat
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Erik G. Burrows wrote:
>
> I have several cases where a border polygon (national park, wilderness,
> etc.) is defined based on a natural feature, such as a
> stream/crestline/etc.
>
> What is the preferred way to handle this dual-purpose way?
>
> Splitting the bord
I have several cases where a border polygon (national park, wilderness,
etc.) is defined based on a natural feature, such as a
stream/crestline/etc.
What is the preferred way to handle this dual-purpose way?
Splitting the border way, creating a relation of the border pieces, and
adding the natur
13 matches
Mail list logo
