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