[mkgmap-dev] default style improvements

Sun Jan 6 15:13:46 GMT 2019

Hi Gerd

see embedded answers

Regards
Ticker

On Sun, 2019-01-06 at 09:11 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> Hi Ticker,
> 
> I think I understand the changes in the points file and in
> inc/accesss_country and they look okay to me. I agree that it is
> better to have the hotel POI
> for those cases where a point has both amenity=restaurant and
> tourism=hotel.
> 
> In polygons I don't understand some of the changes.
> Dubious to me are those for
> - aeroway

aeroway=runway/taxiway/taxilane are rendered as 0x27="Runway" lines
unless they have area=yes, in which case they are rendered as
0x0e="Aircraft Road" polygons. Circular (ie closed ways) taxiways are a
well defined concept and shouldn't need area=no. This handling seemed
to fit with some of the examples I looked at.

> - shop now being rendered at res 24 instead of 22. Why?

I changed this because most shops are at the same scale as
building/cafe/restaurant, which are at res 24. I don't have a strong
opinion on this.

> - highway=pedestrian

Not sure what you are asking here. The most significant change was to
render as routable lines regardless of being closed/multipolygons/area
tag. (ie giving square/plaza edge routing). The other changes were to
continue but avoid any possible highway mop-up so that always get to
'polygons' and there render as square/plaza unless area=no (but have
this rule after place=square rule)

> - the rule
> highway=* & (area=yes | mkgmap:mp_created=true) [0x05 resolution 22]
> was removed. In Italy and probably other countries as well I see many
> highway=residential + area=yes or highway=service+area=yes as an
> alternative
> to map place=square (which is quite new)

This rule is wrong in many ways! It generates a "Parking Lot" as a
highway=* mop-up. There shouldn't be a difference in the handling of
polygons derived from multiPolygon or simple closed ways.

I added the explicit:
# other highways that have area=yes are probably parking lots, eg
services/rest_area
(highway=services | highway=rest_area) & area!=no [0x05 resolution 22]

but, from a recent post, it is thought that highway=services is better
treated as a retail area and I plan to do this in a future change.

If you think other highway types (ie service/residential) that have
area=yes should also generate a square/plaza then I'm happy to include
this.

> Most of the changes in lines look OK to me.
> - I don't like all the changes reg. area, see also Lorenzos comment.

Are you referring to area= changes other than highway=pedestrian as per
Lorenzos comments? Just seen Greg's comments and maybe the answer is to
annotate the rule when it trying to do the best with bad data.

> - I think highway=access_ramp is equivalent to highway=footway, see
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Access_Ramp

I can't remember the example I looked at but it seemed more like a
service road. However, as there is this proposal, I'll change it to
footway. 

> - not sure why you set bicycle=no for highway=trail?

This tag is not well defined, but its wiki page:
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrail
says should not assume that it cycleable

> - You see tmp:stopMopUp=yes in some rules but the rules that would
> evaluate that tag are commented. I'd rather remove all.

Although the rules that test it are commented, one is a diagnostic to
show unhandled highway= and the other is the one that generates a
routable line. Although the opinion seems to be that these shouldn't be
shown, I feel strongly that they should and will continue to do so on
my maps. If other people want the same they just uncomment the line.

> Gerd