On 2 September 2011 11:26, John Henderson <snow...@gmx.com> wrote: > On 02/09/11 10:16, Ian Sergeant wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm pretty sure mapnik doesn't render highway=ford on a way. It is >> probably for the best that it doesn't, IMO. >> >> See >> >> http://forum.openstreetmap.**org/viewtopic.php?pid=7510#**p7510<http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=7510#p7510>and >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Stylesheet<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stylesheet>for >> information on what is >> included in the stylesheets. >> >> And >> >> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/**ticket/2944<http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2944> >> >> for a trac item about rendering fords. >> >> And the wiki for the discussion on tagging fords at the expense of the >> type of the underlying highway. >> > > Thanks for that info. I'm still puzzled as to what you mean by "tagging > fords at the expense of the type of the underlying highway". I actually > hope I'm not missing something obvious. > > I did have that way tagged as highway=unclassified and ford=yes, but the > OSM wiki wording suggests that's for places which just might get wet. The > ford I'm concerned with is long, is the river bed of the Shoalhaven River, > and is always submerged. So the wiki is adamant it's highway=ford. > > Have I missed some alternative way of having OSM show that the road at the > river is a through road, and doesn't just stop at either side? > > See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ford for the discussion I'm referring to.
Of course you can follow having highway=ford, and highway=unclassified ford=yes to mean different things, but in my opinion that is counter-intuitive. So, if I were you, I would either use highway=ford on a node, rather than a way, or use highway=unclassified, ford=yes. Any any event, the mapnik layer isn't (by intention) currently going to render highway=ford on a way. Ian.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au