Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #19136, comment 44


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2020-04-26T18:15:28+02:00 (6 years ago)
Author:
skyper

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #19136, comment 44

    initial v1  
    1111> Still, I think there should be a test in `combinations.mapcss`.
    1212Personally, I think, using `highway` as area is a incorrect mapping and `area:highway` should be used but, sadly, that train departed a while ago.
    13 JOSM allows only `service` and `pedestrian` as multipolygon. `footway` and `path` might be ok, as otherwise, people will use `pedestrian` which is wrong in many cases.Still, I do not like it at all and it reminds me about the mess, we have with `landuse` even though `landcover was proposed and used years in advance but was never supported by many applications including JOSM.
    14 Often this is mapping for the renderer as `width` nor `area:highway` used or correctly rendered. Speaking about `pedestrian`, this even hides a lot of other features as it is rendered on top of them without transparency.
     13JOSM allows only `service` and `pedestrian` as multipolygon. `footway` and `path` might be ok, as otherwise, people will use `pedestrian` which is wrong in many cases. Still, I do not like it at all and it reminds me about the mess, we have with `landuse` even though `landcover was proposed and used years in advance but was never supported by many applications including JOSM.
     14Often this is mapping for the renderer as `width` nor `area:highway` are used or correctly rendered. Speaking about `pedestrian`, this even hides a lot of other features as it is rendered on top of them without transparency.
    1515Routing is another problem and including a multipolygon in a route relation does not work at all.
    1616So a warning might at least lead the people to reflect that kind of mapping and eventually might help to improve the mapping of areas.