Should landcover be ordered by z_order? #53

Closed
gravitystorm opened this Issue Jun 5, 2013 · 12 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@gravitystorm
Owner

gravitystorm commented Jun 5, 2013

At the moment the query orders by both z_order and way_area. Ordering by area makes sure small polygons end up on top (where there's no holes in a larger polygon). I guess z_order will help if the features are on separate layers, since there's no fine control over landcover ordering required.

But is this necessary? Are overlapping features with different z_orders - and the larger one on top - either common or wanted?

@pnorman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pnorman

pnorman Jun 11, 2013

Collaborator

Something small under a big field comes to mind, although I'm not 100% certain what landcover would be underneath.

Collaborator

pnorman commented Jun 11, 2013

Something small under a big field comes to mind, although I'm not 100% certain what landcover would be underneath.

@matthijsmelissen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matthijsmelissen

matthijsmelissen Apr 15, 2014

Collaborator

The most common case is probably underground parking.

Not sure what else this is relevant for?

Collaborator

matthijsmelissen commented Apr 15, 2014

The most common case is probably underground parking.

Not sure what else this is relevant for?

@matthijsmelissen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matthijsmelissen

matthijsmelissen Apr 15, 2014

Collaborator

Piers are another example, see #330.

Collaborator

matthijsmelissen commented Apr 15, 2014

Piers are another example, see #330.

@matthijsmelissen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matthijsmelissen

matthijsmelissen Sep 24, 2014

Collaborator

See also #685.

Collaborator

matthijsmelissen commented Sep 24, 2014

See also #685.

@matthijsmelissen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matthijsmelissen

matthijsmelissen Sep 26, 2014

Collaborator

Are there any other examples for which this is relevant?

Collaborator

matthijsmelissen commented Sep 26, 2014

Are there any other examples for which this is relevant?

@daganzdaanda

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@daganzdaanda

daganzdaanda Sep 29, 2014

Similar to the examples in #685 are subway stations in Munich:
Stachus https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/48.13970/11.56587&layers=N and to the east, at the Marienplatz.
Berlin Hauptbahnhof is pretty complicated:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.52447/13.36974

Similar to the examples in #685 are subway stations in Munich:
Stachus https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/48.13970/11.56587&layers=N and to the east, at the Marienplatz.
Berlin Hauptbahnhof is pretty complicated:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.52447/13.36974

@fgregg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fgregg

fgregg Jan 8, 2015

Here's another example: Big buildings above a large underground railway platform in Chicago:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.87848/-87.63955

fgregg commented Jan 8, 2015

Here's another example: Big buildings above a large underground railway platform in Chicago:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.87848/-87.63955

@matthijsmelissen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matthijsmelissen

matthijsmelissen Jan 8, 2015

Collaborator

In fact I think it's an example of #688. Neither buildings nor railway platforms are rendered by the landcover layer.

Collaborator

matthijsmelissen commented Jan 8, 2015

In fact I think it's an example of #688. Neither buildings nor railway platforms are rendered by the landcover layer.

@matthijsmelissen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matthijsmelissen

matthijsmelissen Mar 21, 2015

Collaborator

Given that we haven't seen any usecase for ordering landcover by z_order in 2 years time, I will close this. Ordering of railway platforms etc. will still be considered, but these are not landcover.

Collaborator

matthijsmelissen commented Mar 21, 2015

Given that we haven't seen any usecase for ordering landcover by z_order in 2 years time, I will close this. Ordering of railway platforms etc. will still be considered, but these are not landcover.

@matthijsmelissen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matthijsmelissen

matthijsmelissen Aug 24, 2015

Collaborator

Now I look at this issue again, I see that my statement does not correspond to my action. I thought the current situation was that z_order (or layer) is not taken into account, but in fact it is. I still think it would be better not to take it into account, so the correct action, I think, would be to remove the layer column from the ORDER BY.

Collaborator

matthijsmelissen commented Aug 24, 2015

Now I look at this issue again, I see that my statement does not correspond to my action. I thought the current situation was that z_order (or layer) is not taken into account, but in fact it is. I still think it would be better not to take it into account, so the correct action, I think, would be to remove the layer column from the ORDER BY.

@kocio-pl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kocio-pl

kocio-pl Sep 10, 2017

Collaborator

Low zoom ordering has been removed in #2740, is it enough for us and the issue can be closed or we want to remove more of it?

Collaborator

kocio-pl commented Sep 10, 2017

Low zoom ordering has been removed in #2740, is it enough for us and the issue can be closed or we want to remove more of it?

@matthijsmelissen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matthijsmelissen

matthijsmelissen Sep 10, 2017

Collaborator

I think we also want to remove the z_order from the regular landuse query.

Collaborator

matthijsmelissen commented Sep 10, 2017

I think we also want to remove the z_order from the regular landuse query.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment