[mkgmap-dev] [PATCH v1] grok unpavedness

Tue Dec 8 17:24:18 GMT 2009

Hi Mark,

congratulations to your success with the unpaved bit.
For the keyword I would use mkgamp:unpaved, as some others has suggested 
too. In my opinion most if not all tags used by mkgmap should start with 
this prefix and should be translated in the style file.

Regards,
Johann

Mark Burton schrieb:
>>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> .
>
>   