Greg Troxel wrote:
I may be alone in thinking this, but I find the legal Right of Way
notion to be critical, and an important distinction between
highway=unclassified and highway=track or highway=service.
Well, ish - but what's important is that all aspects that can be mapped
(legal, physical, etc.) are. I'd always apply the "duck test" to
something to decide between unclassified, service and track, and if
separate information is available about legal access, add that too.
Here, for example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/50733252
is something that has the same legal access as an unclassified road
(legally it is a road) but physically it's far from it, hence highway=track.
So the description of "BOAT" sounds very much like highway=unclassified,
and arguably with physical tags.
No, it's a specific England-and-Wales legal designation that implies
certain access rules.
Sort of related, there's a long-standing issue that dirt roads (e.g.,
highway=residential surface=unpaved) do not get rendered differently,
and this can lead people to wrongly mark them as tracks, when legally
they are roads. I suspect that people in all-paved and people in
zero-paved areas don't see this as important, but I live in a town where
some people live on dirt roards, and was recently in an area of Vermont
where many roads are not paved, and it's a big deal in route planning.
Perhaps now with carto it's just a question of someone sending a patch,
but it seems like there has been reluctance to render unpaved roads
differently.
I don't think that "one patch" is going to cut it here. What's
important to one group of map users in one area is very different to
what's useful to another somewhere else. The "standard map" style is
already very fussy in some respects (does "path" really need a separate
rendering from "footway" et al?), and other maps made with OSM data
(including Mapquest's and http://www.openstreetmap.de/karte.html) tend
to be a bit less "busy". Adding more detail makes it more useful to you
but makes it less useful to someone else.
For me on foot, legal rights-of-way ("designation" in
England-and-Wales-speak) is what's important, so maps that I create for
my own use always incorporate that. You in Vermont would no doubt want
something different, just as the German community did, and the HOT /
osm-fr people did.
If you're prepared to (mis)use existing styling elements from the
current map, you don't even have to touch the map style at all - just
rewrite the data as it goes into the rendering database (1) (if you're
talking about a web map) or edit the mappings in the style file (2) (the
equivalent for a Garmin map). If you just want Vermont, then based on
the PBF extract size at Geofabrik, you could probably render all the
tiles down to a reasonable zoom level and fit it on an SD card on your
phone, so a small virtual server set up as per (3) sat on a desktop or
laptop PC is more than capable of handling it.
Cheers,
Andy
1) https://github.com/openstreetmap/osm2pgsql/blob/master/README_lua.md
2) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mkgmap/help/Custom_styles
3) http://switch2osm.org/loading-osm-data/
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
