2010/5/16 Pieren :
> +1
> I submitted a ticket to revert this change :
> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2970
> Mapnik cannot display all tags and all information in OSM. Showing all
> private things will result of an unreadable map.
It depends on the way the information is displayed. Of cou
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Katie Filbert wrote:
>
> Now, there is a new, somewhat faded "P" symbol that is used for non-public
> parking. (both non-public parking areas/lots and points/nodes)
>
> I dislike this change, and wonder what the reasoning is behind the change.
>
>
+1
I submitted a
On 16 May 2010 13:05, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Anyway, fwiw, I completely disregard the "reasonable size" rule. It
> sort of makes sense for nodes (ie, don't make an "amenity=parking"
> node to represent only 6 spots), but not really for areas (the end
> user will clearly see that it's a tiny car pa
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> Says that amenity=parking should only be used for parking lots, and
> not other less formal parking.
Specifically "A parking lot is an area reserved for parking cars,
trucks, motorcycles etc. Parking spaces along streets are currently
not
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Claudius Henrichs
> wrote:
> > Am 15.05.2010 19:18, Serge Wroclawski:
>
> > So you should rather go for getting the access tagging correctly by on
> > the ground surveying.
>
> I collect plenty of data fo
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Claudius Henrichs wrote:
> Am 15.05.2010 19:18, Serge Wroclawski:
>> 2) We fix the definition of parking and change the renderer.
>>
> Redefining an established tag won't work. How will you ensure that the
> remaining... hundreds of thousands of occurances of ameni
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Katie Filbert wrote:
> Regarding rendering, two weeks ago, a change was made to the Mapnik
> rendering:
Yeah, I forgot to mention that, since the changeset I applied last
night was assuming the old rules.
- Serge
___
Am 15.05.2010 19:18, Serge Wroclawski:
> 2) We fix the definition of parking and change the renderer.
>
Redefining an established tag won't work. How will you ensure that the
remaining... hundreds of thousands of occurances of amenity=parking
comply to your new definition?
So you should rath
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
>
> This appeared to be caused by the lack of access tags, since the
> renderer assumes that in absence of an access tag, it renders as if
> access=public were set.
>
> The polygons we received were of all sorts of parking- lots, side
> par
On 16 May 2010 03:18, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> 2) We fix the definition of parking and change the renderer.
>
> #2 is my favorite solution, as it seems the most "right". #3 is my
> least favorite solution, since it's all high quality data.
A slight twist on #2, you add sub-tags.
amenity=parking
10 matches
Mail list logo
