strange waterway=stream widths #1263
Comments
Author: osm[at]petschge.de Do you have coordinates of a example? |
Author: detlef.reichl[at]gmx.org http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.86181&lon=8.72687&zoom=17&layers=0B00FTF The nearly horizontal very short stream with the ID "Way 27702460". In my original description i have confounded the zoom levels. So it has to be: "If you have a waterway=stream with no width assigned to it, it is at zoom level 16 really big and gets at level 17 smaller. If you assign a width to this stream i.e. 0.5 meters it is at zoom level 16 very small and get a little bit bigger at level 17, like expected." Sorry for the confusion. |
Author: studerap[at]gmail.com I can't find a waterway=stream without a with in your example. Your example has got a with of 0.5. |
Author: osm[at]petschge.de He meant a river which is not tagged with a width. In that case the default width at zoom level 16 is wider than the default width at zoom level 17. |
Author: studerap[at]gmail.com Yes, but in his example there is no such river.. The default with in level 16 is 1 and in level 17 is 0.275. Maybe this could be a problem, but as there is no good example, i didn't changed anything. |
Author: detlef.reichl[at]gmx.org Replying to [comment:3 studerap[at]gmail.com]:
Because there is already a month gone since i posted the example, i've of course corrected the width of the streem some time ago. But i have an other example for you: It's the streem, that goes from the vertical river east. Zoom in and the streem gets smaller. Btw. the labels on canels with a width assigned are way to big in lower zoom levels. Look here: |
Author: osm[at]petschge.de Ah ok. There was one back when the example was submitted. Are you sure about the default width settings? If you convert from pixel to meters (as per [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/FAQ#What_is_the_map_scale_for_a_particular_zoom_level_of_the_map.3F wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/FAQ]) you can see that at zoom level 16 the default width is 2.4 meters, while at zoom level 17 it is 0.33 meters. That would be fine and I could close the bug. |
Author: detlef.reichl[at]gmx.org From that FAQ it is 1.2 meters/pixel at zoom level 17. But take a close look at the map i send the link to (the informationfreeway.org one). At zoom level 17 the streem is aprox. 3 pixels width and at zoom level 16 - whe you have zoomed out - the same streem is aprox. 5 pixels width. That's it what looks strange. |
Author: studerap[at]gmail.com Replying to [comment:6 detlef.reichl[at]gmx.org]:
Thats a good example, looks wired your right.
I don't think we should change this, because nobody can read the text if its smaller :) |
Author: studerap[at]gmail.com Replying to [comment:7 osm[at]petschge.de]:
Yes I'm shure about this, and thats why we should NOT close the bug but fix it. zoom 16 17 Shoudn't they be always bigger or always smaller with the same scale factor? |
Author: osm[at]petschge.de In meters that is: zoom 16 17 So the bug is not in the stylesheet but in the osmarender itself. |
Author: osm[at]petschge.de Should be fixed as of r12637. |
Author: kay_D Still present. Please have a look at The drain is visually VERY thick (just as thick as a track). |
Author: iandees Cleaning aging tickets. |
Reporter: detlef.reichl[at]gmx.org
[Submitted to the original trac issue database at 12.58pm, Monday, 13th October 2008]
If you have a waterway=stream with no width assigned to it, it is at zoom level 17 really big and gets at level 16 smaller. If you assign a width to this stream i.e. 0.5 meters it is at zoom level 17 very small and get a little bit bigger at level 16, like expected.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: