On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:21:51AM +1100, Warin wrote:
>
> But English is not 'clean'. So I would say (in speach) 'a shop for
> motorcycles' .. but 'a motorcyle shop' so plural then singular. Or'a shop for
> alcohol' .. but 'an alcohol shop' so singular in both cases. Or 'a shop for
> shoes' .. but
On Tuesday 28 October 2014, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> > If you want to formulate a formal mathematical rule for where the
> > node for a bay is best placed: Place it so the variance of the
> > distance of the node to the bay's shores is minimized. Most
> > existing nodes comply with this rule remarka
2014-10-27 20:21 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann :
> But when
> we see nothing, it's plain wrong to add something to the database. E.g.
> when
> there's no building, you wouldn't draw an area and tag it building=no. For
> the same reason, you shouldn't make up a maxheight=none (or unsigned) when
> th
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 04:28:53PM -0400, Eric Kidd wrote:
> But the key point here is that none of these official sources represent
> bays as polygons. GNIS uses a pointssomewhere in the bay. The nautical
> charts print the name somewhere in the middle of the bay. Effectively, the
> official data
2014-10-28 10:57 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
> Also, I am reading the arguments about estimating bay area so I am curious
> - when was the last time someone asked about bay area in square kilometers?
> I think it makes only sense in the context of territorial waters, fishing
> or
> mining rights etc.
>
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:18:43AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2014-10-28 10:57 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
>
> > Also, I am reading the arguments about estimating bay area so I am curious
> > - when was the last time someone asked about bay area in square kilometers?
> > I think it makes only
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 October 2014, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> > > If you want to formulate a formal mathematical rule for where the
> > > node for a bay is best placed: Place it so the variance of the
> > > distance of the node to the bay's shores is minimized.
On 27/10/2014, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Since for label rendering you don't really need a polygon there is
> little point in actually generating it in the first place. But i have
> implemented and used techniques not unlike the algorithm described for
> rendering bay and strait labels, like in
On 28/10/2014, Richard Z. wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:18:43AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> 2014-10-28 10:57 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. :
>>
>> The assumption is that a large bay will typically be more important than a
>> smaller bay. For a good rendering you'd show only the more importan
On Tuesday 28 October 2014, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>
> But are all bays 'mostly surrounded by land' or do some bays also
> have very wide entrypoints (in addition to two pockets to trigger
> this peninsula case)? And yes, I know it can always be solved by
> drawing area manually if the algorithm won'
On Tuesday 28 October 2014, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>
> That's actually a very nice rendering. The channels in particular
> seem to be oriented very naturally. But when I look at the underlying
> osm data (nodes), it is much less clear how those features are
> oriented. I feel like the rendering t
On 26.10.2014 17:12, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
Please, try mapping bays as areas - not as nodes.
but if you - for whatever reason ever - can't map it as area then it's
better to map it as node instead not mapping it at all...
Just an example: I did it some times ago with "something" (can't
rem
12 matches
Mail list logo
