[mkgmap-dev] default style improvements

Mon Jan 7 23:30:54 GMT 2019

Can it be like this? So I can just comment the second rule to be happy
:)

highway=pedestrian & (area=yes | mkgmap:mp_created=true) [0x17
resolution 22]
# assume that a closed way with highway=pedestrian is meant to describe
an area even if area=yes is missing
highway=pedestrian & area!=no [0x17 resolution 22]

Il giorno lun, 07/01/2019 alle 10.20 +0000, Gerd Petermann ha scritto:
> I think it is OK when you add a comment like
> # assume that a closed way with highway=pedestrian is meant to
> describe an area even if area=yes is missing
> 
> Gerd
> 
> ________________________________________
> Von: mkgmap-dev <
> mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> > im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <
> rwb-mkgmap at jagit.co.uk
> >
> Gesendet: Montag, 7. Januar 2019 10:55
> An: 
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> 
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] default style improvements
> 
> Hi
> 
> Reading some of the relevant wiki pages, I am finding the wording
> ambiguous.
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Area
> 
> 
> It seems wrong that the handling of the area= tag is not consistent
> between polygons generated from closed ways and those generated by
> multipolygon relations, but, if you assert that it is, I'll respect
> it.
> 
> Regardless, there are a lot of Piazzas that are not generated from a
> multipolygon and don't have the area tag, eg
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/601220094
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/256580148
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/173770171
> 
> 
> My 'polygons' change as it stands:
> 
>  highway=pedestrian & area!=no [0x17 resolution 22]
> 
> will show these as piazza, along with other areas that might not be.
> If I change it to:
> 
>  highway=pedestrian & (area=yes | mkgmap:mp_created=true) [0x17
> resolution 22]
> 
> it won't show them.
> 
> Which is preferred?
> 
> Ticker
> 
> On Sun, 2019-01-06 at 20:37 +0100, Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi wrote:
> > It's not what I meant.
> > 
> > The example you provided is a multipolygon relation and
> > multipolygons
> > are always areas regardless if area=yes is set or not.
> > So this is not a valid example, actually I can not find one really
> > evident of missing area=yes on pedestrian areas.
> > 
> > 
> > Lorenzo
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Il giorno dom, 06/01/2019 alle 17.37 +0000, Ticker Berkin ha
> > scritto:
> > > Hi
> > > 
> > > I don't see anything in the OSM definition of a square that
> > > requires
> > > it
> > > to come from a multipolygon relation
> > > 
> > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Ticker
> > > 
> > > On Sun, 2019-01-06 at 17:46 +0100, Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi wrote:
> > > > Il giorno dom, 06/01/2019 alle 12.45 +0000, Ticker Berkin ha
> > > > scritto:
> > > > > Hi Lorenzo
> > > > > 
> > > > > I know that the OSM definition says square should have
> > > > > area=yes,
> > > > > but
> > > > > I
> > > > > find a vast number where there is no area tag and they seem
> > > > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > square/piazza, eg
> > > > > 
> > > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5174171
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > This is a multipolygon.
> > > > The current rule to handle this with the mkgmap:mp_created tag
> > > > is
> > > > fine
> > > > for a default style in my opinion.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > With Italy data from July 2018, I get about 5000
> > > > > highway=pedestrian
> > > > > polygons without an area tag, and, from a small sample, about
> > > > > 1
> > > > > in
> > > > > 3
> > > > > look like piazza.
> > > > > The only effect is that a polygon is generated, it doesn't
> > > > > effect
> > > > > routes. I prefer to see the possible square rendered.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I don't. 1 in 3 correct is not so good :)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > Ticker
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Lorenzo
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > mkgmap-dev mailing list
> > > > mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > mkgmap-dev mailing list
> > > mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> > > 
> > > 
> > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > mkgmap-dev mailing list
> > mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> > 
> > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> 
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> 
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> 
> 