Wanmil wrote: > > But then it conflicts with "statements continue to work with the > > element but without any action of the finalize section applied"? > > I don't understand why it conflict with the continue handling of the > finalize sections. > But I think the way is handled the same in trunk and in branch so I > it's > not a problem of the mergeroads branch.
Yes, I have also noticed 'continue' still works as expected. So maybe it's better to skip or change this text "statements continue to work with the element but without any action of the finalize section applied" in the document because it is confusing what you meant by this. > After merging we might change the style so that pedestrian areas are > routable. > @Others: what's your opinion? I'd like to see it to be routable along the perimeter of pedestrian squares (not ideal, but better than broken routing) Sometimes you see that non existing footways are drawn cross those squares to connect highways but this is mapping for the router. This has been discussed before on this list, see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2010q2/008126.html _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
