Hi Toby, all, and sorry for replying to an old post. On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 03:57:41PM +0100, Toby Speight wrote: > 0> In article <20090416102702.ga4...@x60s>, > 0> Marko Mäkelä <URL:mailto:marko.mak...@iki.fi> ("Marko") wrote: > > Marko> Could the minor boundaries be displayed on close zoom levels? > Marko> They can be useful when the neighbour of a large city is mostly > Marko> agricultural. It's often nicer to ride a bicycle in rural > Marko> areas, on minor roads with little traffic or intersections. > > I have this in my style/lines: > > /------ > | boundary=administrative > | { name '${left:country}/${right:country}' | > '${left:county}/${right:county}' } > | boundary=administrative & admin_level<5 | boundary=national [0x1e > resolution 17] > | boundary=administrative & admin_level<7 | boundary=political [0x1d > resolution 19] > | #boundary=administrative [0x1c resolution 21] > | boundary=national [0x1e resolution 17] > | boundary=political [0x1c resolution 17] > \------ > > I haven't really tweaked it to my liking, but it shows the principle.
I adapted this for the default style last week. However, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary says that relations are used in order to avoid "name:left name:right, nation:right, region:right." I did not investigate if such *:left and *:right tags have been used in place of left:* and right:*, but I would like to remove the rules for left:* and right:* and solely rely on the relation names (one relation per country/province/city/suburb etc.). Seeing unnamed "State border" lines on the Garmin map should encourage mappers to define boundary relations. What do you think? Should I remove the rules for left:*, right:* names from the default style, or should I just add a comment to the effect that "these are deprecated, see the 'relations' file and wiki/Relation:boundary"? Best regards, Marko _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
