[mkgmap-dev] Commit: r1867: Translate leisure=track into a line (footway) unless area=yes.

Tue Mar 1 14:40:45 GMT 2011

On 28/02/2011 16:01, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 03:01:57PM +0000, Dave F. wrote:
>> But that would mean *all* linear leisure=tracks are rendered as
>> footpaths. This is clearly incorrect.
> Previously, the linear leisure=track were not rendered at all (or they
> were rendered as polygons, before WanMil committed the polygon-closing
> patch).

I'm not sure what relevance that has to your amendment or my comment above.

>> You should make use of the access tag to clarify public access
> Can you clarify what you mean? The default style does generate map
> elements that are access=private or access=no.

So, why have you submitted your amendment which ignores the above?

> The only exception is one
> that I implemented a while back, to hide service and emergency exit
> tunnels to a railway tunnel.

Why would you want to do that? Emergency exits are useful!

> What is displayed on the map is not necessarily accessible by the
> general public.
>
> The translation (which you quoted above) already adds access=no and
> foot=yes if these keys are not already present.

But, again, you're changing *all* when you don't know if they're also a 
footway?

>   If the source data
> carries foot=no, then the line should not be routable at all. If it
> carries some access tags, then the way is available for routing in those
> modes of transport.

But it should be rendered as a track.

You're changing them from leisure=track to highway=footway even though 
you don't know that they are.

>> A sports track (such as a running track) is still a sports track when
>> not in use&  should be rendered as so.
> The problem is the limited number of way types.

I don't see the relevance of that for this discussion.
There's sports tracks & footways along with access & foot=*.
What more do you need in this case?

>> If there is a defined public way that is occasionally used as a sports
>> track (mountain bike track, for example) then that track could be put
>> into a route relation.
> Right. This is even more so with seasonal tracks, such as Nordic skiing
> routes or snowmobile routes. The underlying ways may be paths or roads
> in summer, or they may be in the middle of lakes or agricultural fields.
> Relations come to the rescue.
>
>> Multi polygon relations make the area tag redundant.
> WanMil, could we automatically add area=yes to all multipolygon relation
> members? Or perhaps mkgmap:area=yes?

Will that mess up the displaying of the hole created by the inner multi 
polygon?

---------------

I believe you submission should be reverted because it converts all 
tracks to footways.

Cheers
Dave F.