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
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
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
>
> 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
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
5 matches
Mail list logo