[OSM-talk] highway = path in mapnik/osmarander

2008-08-25 Thread wer-ist-roger
Hej everyone,

there are several ways that I know of that need to be "highway = path" but 
neither mapnik nor osmarander render pathes. I think that path is a real 
important tag, is there a plan or a chance that mapnik and/or osmarander are 
going to render it?

wer-ist-roger

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] highway = path in mapnik/osmarander

2008-08-25 Thread Gregory
What's wrong with highway=footway ?
Or highway=cycleway if it is mainly for cyclists.

2008/8/25 wer-ist-roger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Hej everyone,
>
> there are several ways that I know of that need to be "highway = path" but
> neither mapnik nor osmarander render pathes. I think that path is a real
> important tag, is there a plan or a chance that mapnik and/or osmarander
> are
> going to render it?
>
> wer-ist-roger
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Gregory
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] highway = path in mapnik/osmarander

2008-08-25 Thread wer-ist-roger
>What's wrong with highway=footway ?
>Or highway=cycleway if it is mainly for cyclists.

As far as I understand is footway or cycleway a very good constructed way and 
path can be anything where you can walk or bike on and that is less than a 
track. Correct me if I'm wrong but from the map feature page I understand it 
this way.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] highway = path in mapnik/osmarander

2008-08-25 Thread Alex Mauer
Gregory wrote:
> What's wrong with highway=footway ?
> Or highway=cycleway if it is mainly for cyclists.

because not all such paths are for foot or bicycle, and
highway=footway+foot=no is not a good way to do it. (same for
highway=cycleway+bicycle=no)

And calling something a footway implicitly puts foot above the other
uses, even though this may not be the case in reality.  The "designated"
access value helps with this though.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] highway = path in mapnik/osmarander

2008-08-25 Thread Christoph Eckert
Hi,

> I think that path is a real
> important tag, is there a plan or a chance that mapnik and/or osmarander
> are going to render it?

osmarender does it (and BTW the bike layout in Navit as well):
http://tinyurl.com/5hybeu

Best regards,

ce

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] highway = path in mapnik/osmarander

2008-08-25 Thread Christoph Eckert
Hi,

> What's wrong with highway=footway ?
> Or highway=cycleway if it is mainly for cyclists.

nothing. But there are paths like hiking paths which have been tagged as 
footways in the past. IMO that's wrong. For me, a footway has to be paved. A 
path most often isn't.

Cheers,

ce

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] highway = path in mapnik/osmarander

2008-08-25 Thread Alex Mauer
Christoph Eckert wrote:
> nothing. But there are paths like hiking paths which have been tagged as 
> footways in the past. IMO that's wrong. For me, a footway has to be paved. A 
> path most often isn't.

I don't think path or footway say anything about the surface of the
route.  Just the size and what's allowed to use it.  You might want to
use the surface=* tag for that.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


Re: [OSM-talk] highway = path in mapnik/osmarander

2008-08-25 Thread Christoph Eckert
Hi,

> I don't think path or footway say anything about the surface of the
> route.  Just the size and what's allowed to use it.  You might want to
> use the surface=* tag for that.

agreed. But it's only one aspect. A footway IMO is for pedestrians only (or at 
least mostly used by pedestrians). A path isn't. It's used by hikers, 
cyclists, maybe even motorbikes, horses and (grin) snowmobiles :) .

The discussion about "Do we want to have paths or even not" will lead us 
nowhere. A certain amount of mappers wants to use it. Thus it's in the 
database. It just does not matter if this amount is 2, 10, 30, 60 or even 80% 
of all mappers. The only fact that counts is: it is in the database because 
people need and use it.

Just my two cents,

ce


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk