[mkgmap-dev] [PATCH v1] grok unpavedness

Wed Dec 9 10:40:41 GMT 2009

On 09.12.2009 11:27, Steve Hosgood wrote:
> Mark Burton wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>>    
>>> congratulations to your success with the unpaved bit.
>>>      
>>
>> Thanks Johann.
>>
>>    
>>> 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.
>>>      
>>
>> I agree. Therefore, I propose that we use:
>>
>> mkgmap:unpaved to tag ways that are "unpaved"
>>
>> mkgmap:ferry to tag ways that are "ferries"
>>
>> Mapping from OSM tags can be done in the style file.
>>
>> Is everyone happy with that? If so, I will make the change and commit
>> it.
>>
>>    
>
> I disapprove.
>
> The trouble with the "mkgmap:unpaved=???" approach is that it 
> duplicates existing functionality in OSM. We should strive to get the 
> existing functionality better specified if it doesn't already do the 
> job for us. Otherwise, mapping effort will be spent on adding a set of 
> tags to OSM which only benefit the Garmin routable maps project. What 
> about the TomTom people? Or the AndNav2 users? They'll want to know 
> about routeable or unrouteable unpaved roads too.
>
>
> Unrouteable unpaved roads are a real-world fact, not a 'mkgmap' feature.
>
>
> I do agree though that OSM's tagging for road surfaces is a bit of a 
> mess, but it needs an OSM-level cleanup if that's a problem, not at 
> mkgmap-level.
>
> AFAIK there are "surface=???" "smoothness=???" "mtb:scale=???" 
> "sac_scale=???" "rtc_rate=???" tags in OSM, all of which (sometimes in 
> combinations) ought to be enough to give mkgmap the clues needed to 
> set the routeability of a given way. Plus "access=???" and 
> "<vehicle>=no" of course.
>
> Not just that, but those tags already exist. We should be using them.
> Steve
>
You don't seem to understand. You can use them and the default style 
should use some of them. However there is no clear borderline of what is 
paved and what is unpaved, therefore it is best to use a new key. You 
can then use rules like

highway=* & .... {set mkgmap:unpaved=1} to have the street recognised as 
unpaved. Noone will ever put than key into the osm database. As all of 
the keys are based on different objectives this is up to the style-file 
to put the rules for what is considered paved and what not.
highway)* & ( mtb:scale>1 | tracktype=grade2 | tracktpye=grade3 | 
tracktype=grade4 | tracktype=grade5 | smoothness=bad .....)  {add 
mkgmap:unpaved=1}

The goal of the mkgmap:.... key is that it DOES NOT exist in OSM database.

And the decision which should be avoided or not, should be left to the 
style-file instead of being hardcoded somewhere into mkgamp.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20091209/6e777892/attachment.html 