Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.

I have been following this topic on a "casual basis" (ie I don't feel passionately about it), but I think that what you have written sounds fine. I guess that you will hear from people that feel passionately against your views, but those that think that what you have written makes sense might form

Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.

On 13/11/12 20:29, Ian Steer wrote: > I have been following this topic on a "casual basis" (ie I don't feel > passionately about it), but I think that what you have written sounds fine. > > I guess that you will hear from people that feel passionately against your > views, but those that think tha

Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.

On 13 November 2012 17:38, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > I may have expressed my concerns, but I very much encourage others to > voice their thoughts. > > OK :-) I've been quietly watching the back-and-forth. My opinion (and mapping usage) is that smoothness= and surface= offer the simplest and best

Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.

> > Michael > > - > [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2011-June/022789.html > [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-January/055961.html > [3] > http://www.openstreetmap.de/karte.html?zoom=10&lat=52.51448&lon=13.40603&layers=B000

Re: [talk-au] tagging 4WD and dirt roads - I give up.

For rendering, no surface= or surface=asphalt/concrete/paved would produce the current rendering. Any other surface= would produce a dashed line/casing. To me that's a relatively simple distinction that would be more appealing to those maintaining the renderers. I've been working on this render