Osm tags #26
Osm tags #26
Conversation
| filteredClasses.add(Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassTrunk); | ||
|
|
||
| else if(roadClass.intValue() == Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassMotorway.getValue()) | ||
| filteredClasses.add(Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassUnclassified); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems to be a typo? Shouldn't Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassMotorway be added?
|
|
||
| if(roadClass.intValue() == Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassUnclassified.getValue()) | ||
| filteredClasses.add(Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassUnclassified); | ||
|
|
||
| else if(roadClass.intValue() == Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassTertiary.getValue()) | ||
| filteredClasses.add(Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassTertiary); | ||
|
|
||
| else if(roadClass.intValue() == Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassSecondary.getValue()) | ||
| filteredClasses.add(Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassSecondary); | ||
|
|
||
| else if(roadClass.intValue() == Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassPrimary.getValue()) | ||
| filteredClasses.add(Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassPrimary); | ||
|
|
||
| else if(roadClass.intValue() == Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassTrunk.getValue()) | ||
| filteredClasses.add(Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassTrunk); | ||
|
|
||
| else if(roadClass.intValue() == Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassMotorway.getValue()) | ||
| filteredClasses.add(Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassUnclassified); | ||
|
|
||
| else if(roadClass.intValue() == Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassResidential.getValue()) | ||
| filteredClasses.add(Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassResidential); | ||
|
|
||
| else if(roadClass.intValue() == Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassService.getValue()) | ||
| filteredClasses.add(Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassService); | ||
|
|
||
| else if(roadClass.intValue() == Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassOther.getValue()) | ||
| filteredClasses.add(Way.ROAD_CLASS.ClassOther); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This code is repetitive and should be handled more compactly.
| if(line.hasOption("roadClass")){ | ||
| roadClass = Integer.parseInt(line.getOptionValue("roadClass")); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should really only one roadClass be processed or multiple? In #25, I assumed that multiple road classes should be processed?
| options.addOption( OptionBuilder.withLongOpt( "roadClass" ) | ||
| .withDescription( "road class (default 6)" ) | ||
| .hasArg() | ||
| .withArgName("Z-LEVEL") |
|
|
||
| assert fields != null; | ||
|
|
||
| return fields.containsKey("bikable"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but where comes the bikable field from?
|
|
||
| this.tagNames = new String[section.fields.keySet().size()]; | ||
| this.tagValues = new String[section.fields.keySet().size()]; | ||
|
|
||
| int i = 0; | ||
| for(String key : section.fields.keySet()) { | ||
| this.tagNames[i] = key; | ||
| this.tagValues[i] = section.fields.get(key); | ||
| i++; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As adding osm tags will have a substantial consequence on size of the generated tiles, could you elaborate a bit on the reasons why these are added? Perhaps this should be optional? Or at least the keys be filterable?
| @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ | |||
| group 'io.sharedstreets' | |||
| version '0.3.1' | |||
| version '0.3.2' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Version 0.3.2 already is published though this PR has not been merged.
This pull request adds support for SharedStreets Ref System pull request 27 which adds a complete OSM tag set to SharedStreets metadata tiles.