chris wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Alex Mauer <ha...@hawkesnest.net> wrote: > > > On 09/09/2009 12:05 PM, Chris Hunter wrote: > > > .... Of course, it also reopens the track/path argument, > > > but I'll leave that to others to battle out. > > > > How is there even an argument there? track is for cars and always has > > been, while path is for not-cars and always has been. > > > > There's an ongoing thread on the newbies list about tracks and paths not > rendering in the cyclemap layer. It's basically a rehash of the "code for > accuracy, not for the renderer". The start of the thread is at > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/newbies/2009-September/003522.html
how hard is it (either technically or "politically") to get the major renderers to adapt to needs like this? as i understand it, the paved/unpaved topic has much the same issue. (and i'd like to be able to tell my new-to-osm friends that they'll someday be able to actually see the results of adding unpaved tags.) paul =--------------------- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 55.4 degrees) _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
