|
If a building is tagged buildng=yes it rendrers in darker colour and with outline, if it is something else (building=appartments/building=garage...) it renderes in a lighter colour and without outline. building=school is rendered (almost?) same as building=yes. Is this intentional? If it is, why? Example can be seen here. |
|
If you use building=house, etc for residential properties then non-residences stand out more, which I think looks quite good. I am guessing it is intentional as the rule is in the style file; 'residential','house','garage','garages','detached','terrace','apartments' are rendered without the line around them, and other buildings with the line (there seem to be special rules for stations, supermarkets, places of worship and airport terminals). See for example here Makes sense, it just looks weird if only one building in the area is tagged specifically.
(27 Jan '12, 10:16)
LM_1
This rendering decision confuses a lot of mappers (including local mappers I discussed it with) mostly because it does not match current tagging at all. Unremarkable buildings are usually building=yes, at 96% of buildings. The fundamental problem with this style is, imo, that you need to map things as "not remarkable", when it should preferably be the other way round. I understand why it's done this way (it is easier to compile a list of values for "non-special" buildings), but I wonder if it will ever work really well.
(28 Jan '12, 04:30)
Tordanik
It would really make more sense if defaultly tagged buildings were considered insignificant and the important ones (usually tagged more precisely) according to this.
(28 Jan '12, 19:53)
LM_1
|
|
Yes, it is intentional. You can see the details directly in the stylesheet. Why? It is a choice for better buildings distinction, see these tickets #3463 #3594 #3610 If you have better proposition, I think that you can suggest them. |
