Daniela Duerbeck (daniela.duerbeck@gmx.de) wrote:
charlie@cferrero.net wrote:
I do not think that they are pointless. If a forest has a name, why shouldn't it get a POI?
Because it already gets a polygon with a name - I can't believe that many people think "Hmmm, I wonder where the nearest forest/pond is - I'll do a POI search?". On the other hand, they'll often think "I wonder where the nearest supermarket is" and if the supermarket is an area and the map wasn't compiled with --add-pois-to-areas, they won't find the supermarket. This is happening increasingly as POIs are converted to areas in OSM. In any case, if you could control which polygons also got POIs, then people who like searching for the nearest graveyard or field can do that. And those that don't, don't have to have their maps littered with POI icons that they don't want in order to get the POIs they do want.
But I do not understand, is why e.g. I do not get a POI for: <tag k='area' v='yes'/> <tag k='name' v='Wisent'/> <tag k='tourism' v='attraction'/>
but one for: <tag k='building' v='yes'/> <tag k='name' v='Villa Dracula'/> <tag k='tourism' v='attraction'/>
It may be because you don't have an area=yes rule in your polygons style file, but you do have a building=yes rule.
I thought that area=yes should make --add-poi-to-areas to attach a camera (in this case) to "Wisent". (I am still in my zoo ... :-))) (In Villa Dracula, you can watch bats)
Dani
-- Charlie