On jeudi 15 octobre 2009, Pieren wrote: > Are you suggesting that when a landuse is inside another landuse, we > just don't use a multipolygon relation and don't care if the big is > overlapping the small ?
Not suggesting, exploring solutions. I'm probably missing elements, but I feel it could be possible, and a much lower burden on mappers. But, yes. Explore the idea of putting an end to inner polygons when something exist in this inner. > But we are not modelling the reality in this case. why not ? "(the matrix) It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth." what if the truth should be considered a derivate from the osm database ? A filter ? If well define, the modeling would contain reality. (And ease mappers's pain) > If someone or some > software requests only a certain type of landuse, it will get a full > polygone without any hole which is not correct. exact > By doing this, you > force all softwares to ask for all data and make complex calculations > just to find what has to be excluded. exact, but not "just to find", in the main goal to ease mapping. > I'm usually not a supporter of > 'tagging for the software' Yeah, you surprise me ;-) But my point is also toward another consideration : Mappers will tend to walk that way, and nothing can stop them. You can't force a mapper to add a thousand small lake in a forest to an inner polygon. Let's now ease our pain and accept it. software are allready forced to do some calculation (order in mapnik rendering) PS: pieren arguing for relation while sly is arguing against, the world is upside down ;-) ! -- sly Sylvain Letuffe li...@letuffe.org qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
