[mkgmap-dev] [PATCH v1] grok unpavedness
From Mark Burton markb at ordern.com on Tue Dec 8 09:03:10 GMT 2009
> >> Not sure if those are the best tags to use - any thoughts? > >> > > I think the most used tag is surface=unpaved, but as usual > > we can do this in the style file. > > > > highway=*& (surface=unpaved | surface=dirt | surface=sand | > > surface=ground | surface=gravel) {add unpaved=yes} > > > > Chris > > > > > Well I prefer if it it is kept like right now, and surface=* is not > automatically considered as unpaved avoidance and the tag itself is not > present in OSM database. This leaves more choice in the style-file to > abuse the unpaved tag (and allows the choice if for example > tracktype=grade2 is considered to be avoided or not via "avoid unpaved > roads". > > The default style-file of course should have something like below: > > highway=*& (surface=unpaved | surface=dirt | surface=sand | > surface=ground | surface=gravel | tracktype=grade2 | tracktype=grade3 | tracktype=grade4 | tracktype=grade5 | sac_scale=* | smothness= ........) {add unpaved=yes} Felix echoes my thoughts exactly. There's lot's of surface values that imply unpavedness so using surface=unpaved isn't the way to go. I did wonder about using a mkgmap specific tag, e.g. mkgmap:unpaved=yes but as unpaved=yes (or paved=no) do not obviously conflict with existing OSM tags, I thought I would not use the mkgmap: prefix. If people are happy with that, I will commit the patch soon as it is. Mark
- Previous message: [mkgmap-dev] [PATCH v1] grok unpavedness
- Next message: [mkgmap-dev] [PATCH v1] grok unpavedness
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the mkgmap-dev mailing list