I have deployed Steve's changes and one example which has rendered
already is the current alterations to M1 J8:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.75704&lon=-0.41518&zoom=16&layers=B0FT
In the current Mapnik osm.xml file a road will render in the same dashed
style if it has highway={proposed,construction} regardless of the
proposed= or construction= tag. In both cases the name= tag will be used
for the text.
This construction has recently moved the position of the entry/exit
roads on the Eastern side of the junction. Someone corrected this data
earlier this week and the updates are shown already on the Osmarender
layer.
Jon
On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 21:48 +0100, Peter Miller wrote:
> Excellent. Thanks Steve.
>
> So how should a proposed road be tagged? Should it be highway=proposed
> Proposed=trunk Name=foo bypass?
>
>
> Peter
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Chilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 31 March 2008 20:53
> > To: Dave Stubbs; Peter Miller
> > Cc: Talk Openstreetmap
> > Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed bypass
> >
> > In an attempt to avoid this kind of "false tagging for rendering" I have a
> > submitted an addition to the mapnik style tonight.
> > It will render highway=construction or highway=proposed from z12 upwards.
> > It will also render a text label (based on name=) for z13 upwards.
> > Jamie's more sophisticated suggestions make sense but are not easily to
> > render at the moment. Perhaps we can work towards that time-based approach
> > later.
> > For now it would make a lot of sense for people to revisit roads under
> > construction they have tagged and follow this suggested scheme:
> > highway=construction
> > construction=foo (motorway, trunk, primary or whatever - if known)
> > name=Foo bypass, due to open Dec 08 (or whatever)
> >
> > PS: I haven't looked at the file but hope this doesn't throw osmarender
> > rules out, which I know picks something up to render construction
> >
> > Cheers
> > STEVE
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dave Stubbs
> > Sent: Mon 3/31/2008 6:03 PM
> > To: Peter Miller
> > Cc: Talk Openstreetmap
> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping Mottram and Tintwistle proposed
> > bypass
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Peter Miller
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for that Robert. A few other questions:
> > >
> > > 1) How does one tag something that is being considered seriously
> > (such as
> > > the Mottram Tintwistle bypass), but which may well never get
> > built? I think
> > > I will just put the estimated build date given by the highways
> > agency for
> > > now. (I will also continue to use the tunnel trick to get it to
> > render in
> > > the mean time).
> >
> >
> > By "tunnel trick" I presume that you mean tag it as a tunnel so that
> > it turns up dotted, despite not being a tunnel, nor ever will be a
> > tunnel?
> >
> > That's not a trick, that's a dirty, dirty hack and should be stomped
> > on hard.
> >
> > If you want proposed roads to show up dotted then fix the renderer,
> > don't engage in phantom tagging.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
