[mkgmap-dev] access=no on a cycleway doesn't work?

Fri Oct 30 08:17:24 GMT 2009


Johann Gail wrote:
>> Should we perhaps introduce a mkgmap:access: family of tags and map
>> the "native" tags to those?  e.g.,
>>
>> access=no { add mkgmap:access:foot=no; add mkgmap:access:bicycle=no; ... }
>> access=yes { add mkgmap:access:foot=yes; add mkgmap:access:bicycle=yes; ... }
>> access=destination { similar... }
>> bicycle=no { set mkgmap:access:bicycle=no }
>> bicycle=yes { set mkgmap:access:bicycle=yes }
>> bicycle=destination { set mkgmap:access:bicycle=yes }
>>
>>   
>>     
> Yes, I like this idea. This would mean that everyone who need it could 
> define its own mapping of the access tags in the style file. And it 
> would be IMO a cleanly defined interface without uncertainities in the 
> meanings of the tags. Furthermore it is extensible, if in future new 
> tags are introduced in the osm data, e.g access=private or 
> rollerblades=yes or whatever.
>
> But I would expect some perfomance drop if each tag needs to be 
> translated into the internal one.
>   
I rather see the problem if you use such rules in the style-file now 
that you don't know whether they will be used or not (maybe another rule 
is already matching on the same street), or do you want to use these 
rules to precede all others?

access=no is generally a problematic case, very often it is in places 
where motorcar=no is correct, but people choose the wrong value.
>
> Regards,
> Johann
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20091030/e16c4dbc/attachment.html