Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Don't render duplicate label/shiel for connected ways with the same computed style #3869

Closed
Penegal opened this issue Mar 7, 2018 · 2 comments

Comments

@Penegal
Copy link

Penegal commented Mar 7, 2018

Hello, there.

I hope this is not a style-related issue, but I saw nothing related in styling docs.

When there are several ways connected one after the other, their labels are rendered, if possible, one after the other, which leads to such renderings:
image

You can see here that the Ruisseau de la Tuilotte label is duplicated because the way has been splitted several times because of tagging differences. Still, the rendering of the constituting ways is always the same, but the label is duplicated. Depending on the case, there can be tens of such duplicates. The problem also arises for, for example, road shields:
image

My point is, this behavior clutters the tiles with duplicated information: when the name of a waterway is always the same, there is no point in rendering it nonstop. Could there be some option or styling attribute to disable this behavior? When enabled, and rendering connected ways for which the computed style is the same, the shield and label placements algorithms would consider the whole connected ways, and not each way separately. That could allow style designers to decrease artificial map cluttering on already heavy maps.

Regards.

@talaj
Copy link
Member

talaj commented Mar 7, 2018

There is repeat-distance option for that.

But be aware that this can simply lead to features clipped on tile border if buffer-size is not sufficient. This is because repeat-distance can "chain" placements.

@Penegal
Copy link
Author

Penegal commented Mar 8, 2018

Okay, I think that answers my question; sorry for the noise, I thought this was a bug.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants