|
At https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/60.8507/8.5202 I'm working on a multipolygon (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/160841891) with lots of "inner"s to define the skiing area. The problem is that the branch to the east is covered by wood instead of being on top of the wood area. How do I fix that? Do I really need to use the layer tag? Could also split up the wood into two object but I wonder how this should be done correctly. Interestingly enough, when the skiing area covered the wood on the west (next to Skarsnuten peak) the skiing area was rendered on top (although with "trees" in it). So why difference? |
|
Firstly, I know it is used in North America, but use of It may be unfortunate, but the usual british english term "recreation ground" does not refer to any area used for recreation, but for areas which are predominantly sports field. For me the two absolutely implict properties of a recreation ground are a) that it is covered by grass and b) that it is flat. A quick check on the wiki suggests that this is a widespread view. The problem is that by extending the meaning of recreation_ground it makes it impossible to make any implicit assumptions and hundreds of thousands of already mapped objects will need additional tags. I would suggest that you use Secondly, have no fear about breaking up imported polygons. OSM is not a repository for other people's data. Thirdly, unless there are stringent prohibitions about skiing through the trees I wouldn't worry about precisely delineating the ski area in such a manner excluding all areas between the pistes. The existing piste:type=downhill can be used on areas too and thus provides additional information about the width of a specific piste, and when taken in toto for a resort shows the area of on-piste skiing. Just a few comments: 1) landuse=winter_sports isn't rendered by standard mapnik so in that case I won't be able to see it on the map. 2) I understand that, but my reasoning was that we could be shooting ourselves in the foot if we make it difficult for other "providers" to improve on the data they provided down the road (= doing updates). But I can understand if that's not a main priority. 3) I just like to have the visual view of the actual skiing area. If piste:type=downhill is visibly rendered by standard mapnik I guess that could be used instead.
(28 Oct '15, 19:27)
AJensen
|
What about splitting the area? Sometimes this isn't the worst idea, especially for complex shapes.
You mean splitting the wood area covering the multipolygon? The wood area comes from an bigger import it seems like, so ideally I would like to leave that alone in case they would make future updates - but maybe splitting that area is simply the only and the proper way to deal with it...