Multipolygon/boundary relations and subrelations
Today I observed that the boundary relation of Luxembourg was changed in a way that it does not contain the boundary ways itself but links to other relations that contain parts of the boundary (Luxembourg/Belgium; Luxembourg/Netherlands etc.). I am not sure if that's an accepted scheme for mps/boundaries. Does anyone know if that's correct and accepted? Should mkgmap support this? WanMil
It appears someone (I can't find out who) likes the boundary_segments a lot. The three boundary_segments of Luxembourg now make up the Luxembourg border. That's in my opinion inconsistent with map_features and with the tagging of all other European countries. Personally I dislike boundary_segments: logically I understand it, although - also logically- it should also be used on continents, regions, cities etcetera which would be uncontrollable If nobody opposes I'll repair the Luxembourg border relation somewhere wednesday evening Cheers, Johan On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:56:24 +0200, WanMil wrote:
Today I observed that the boundary relation of Luxembourg was changed in a way that it does not contain the boundary ways itself but links to other relations that contain parts of the boundary (Luxembourg/Belgium; Luxembourg/Netherlands etc.).
I am not sure if that's an accepted scheme for mps/boundaries. Does anyone know if that's correct and accepted? Should mkgmap support this?
WanMil _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
I vote for repairing it. I have read the multipolygon and boundary wiki pages again and again and think that they don't allow using the boundary-segment relations to compose the complete boundary relation. Anyhow mapnik does not support using boundary segments and that's a good explanation why reverting the edit of Loll78 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8535622). WanMil
It appears someone (I can't find out who) likes the boundary_segments a lot. The three boundary_segments of Luxembourg now make up the Luxembourg border. That's in my opinion inconsistent with map_features and with the tagging of all other European countries. Personally I dislike boundary_segments: logically I understand it, although - also logically- it should also be used on continents, regions, cities etcetera which would be uncontrollable
If nobody opposes I'll repair the Luxembourg border relation somewhere wednesday evening
Cheers, Johan
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:56:24 +0200, WanMil wrote:
Today I observed that the boundary relation of Luxembourg was changed in a way that it does not contain the boundary ways itself but links to other relations that contain parts of the boundary (Luxembourg/Belgium; Luxembourg/Netherlands etc.).
I am not sure if that's an accepted scheme for mps/boundaries. Does anyone know if that's correct and accepted? Should mkgmap support this?
WanMil _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
I've send Loll78 a message to check into this discussion, let's hope he responds. It has to do with a proposed relation change which seems to be intended to be applied to the France border. Luckily that border hasn't changed yet. Take a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/boundary_segment Cheers, Johan On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:14:15 +0200, WanMil wrote:
I vote for repairing it. I have read the multipolygon and boundary wiki pages again and again and think that they don't allow using the boundary-segment relations to compose the complete boundary relation.
Anyhow mapnik does not support using boundary segments and that's a good explanation why reverting the edit of Loll78 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8535622).
WanMil
It appears someone (I can't find out who) likes the boundary_segments a lot. The three boundary_segments of Luxembourg now make up the Luxembourg border. That's in my opinion inconsistent with map_features and with the tagging of all other European countries. Personally I dislike boundary_segments: logically I understand it, although - also logically- it should also be used on continents, regions, cities etcetera which would be uncontrollable
If nobody opposes I'll repair the Luxembourg border relation somewhere wednesday evening
Cheers, Johan
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:56:24 +0200, WanMil wrote:
Today I observed that the boundary relation of Luxembourg was changed in a way that it does not contain the boundary ways itself but links to other relations that contain parts of the boundary (Luxembourg/Belgium; Luxembourg/Netherlands etc.).
I am not sure if that's an accepted scheme for mps/boundaries. Does anyone know if that's correct and accepted? Should mkgmap support this?
WanMil _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Loll78 responded to my mail: "As you already mentioned in the forum, I have used the boundary_segment because this (new) proposed relations seams to me as a good thing because it simplifies the edition of boundaries, especially the large ones (i.e. of countries) a lot. But I know too it will be also be inconsiquent if one does not used that scheme for every boundary. I think a compilation software should handle both schemes. The same as the compiler can also handles the different boundary schemes of i.e. Germany (type=multipolygon) and i.e. France (type=boundary). Anyway, after rereading the proposed relation type, it is not clear to me, if several boundary_segments forming a closed area have the same effect as the the entire individual ways in a normal relation." Although I still think this option is not good because Luxembourg is a simple closed border (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary : For not closed, linear border, see Proposal:Relation boundary segment) I didn't want to revert Loll78's changeset. I used a dual option: I created a new boundary relation for Luxembourg in the style which is being used for all other European/worldwide countries. My changeset: 8715072, new relation number for the Luxembourg border: 1662399. Cheers, Johan On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:04:22 +0200, navmaps wrote:
I've send Loll78 a message to check into this discussion, let's hope he responds. It has to do with a proposed relation change which seems to be intended to be applied to the France border. Luckily that border hasn't changed yet. Take a look at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/boundary_segment
Cheers, Johan
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:14:15 +0200, WanMil wrote:
I vote for repairing it. I have read the multipolygon and boundary wiki pages again and again and think that they don't allow using the boundary-segment relations to compose the complete boundary relation.
Anyhow mapnik does not support using boundary segments and that's a good explanation why reverting the edit of Loll78 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8535622).
WanMil
It appears someone (I can't find out who) likes the boundary_segments a lot. The three boundary_segments of Luxembourg now make up the Luxembourg border. That's in my opinion inconsistent with map_features and with the tagging of all other European countries. Personally I dislike boundary_segments: logically I understand it, although - also logically- it should also be used on continents, regions, cities etcetera which would be uncontrollable
If nobody opposes I'll repair the Luxembourg border relation somewhere wednesday evening
Cheers, Johan
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:56:24 +0200, WanMil wrote:
Today I observed that the boundary relation of Luxembourg was changed in a way that it does not contain the boundary ways itself but links to other relations that contain parts of the boundary (Luxembourg/Belgium; Luxembourg/Netherlands etc.).
I am not sure if that's an accepted scheme for mps/boundaries. Does anyone know if that's correct and accepted? Should mkgmap support this?
WanMil _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
participants (2)
-
navmaps -
WanMil