On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 5:51 AM, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Christoph Böhme wrote: >> "Elena of Valhalla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Christoph Böhme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> Marking of farm tracks which have generally have no names was never >>>> planned, I think. Just roads that usually should have a name like >>>> residential streets and for which this fact is tested. >>> such farm tracks are usually very useful for hitchers and possibly >>> cyclists, so in certain places there is a strong case for adding them >>> and i believe that people have already started doing so >> >> Sorry, I might have been unclear. Farm tracks (and all other ways) >> should of course be put on the map. I only meant that there was no >> intension of marking them with a no-name tag. > > BUT they are currently being highlighted as HAVING no name so what needs > changing so that they do not get highlighting?
NOTHING. It does not matter. The original idea was to simply highlight unnamed roads to direct mapping in London. We have lots of traced roads with no names which makes it hard to see where the most effort is needed otherwise. These tracings are half and half highway=residential, highway=unclassified. My original idea was to only highlight highway=unclassified if they were shorter than 2km or so... but decided it really wasn't necessary for the purpose. Since then the map has been expanded to cover everywhere (thanks to CloudMade), which is useful because the tracing problem exists in many other places. But it's also completely irrelevant in some areas. And frankly, if it's completely irrelevant in your area then you should just ignore it. The no names map is an advisory tool, orange does not necessarily mean anything is wrong, it just means that there is a residential or unclassified road without a name. There are occasions where it is useful to have the nonames map not highlight a particular road (mostly to stop people constantly going to check if it has a name and being unable to find one) -- this is only a very useful feature in areas where unnamed residential/unclassified are unusual (and so usually errors) ie: in London and other cities/towns with similar ideas about roads. > > And how small is small for a roundabout? we are talking 60mts or so across > with islands on the approach for the ones I'm looking at. Some bits with names > which need removing so are not highlighted - other bits highlighted because > they have no name ... > > The bottom line is WHAT set of highway= tags should be flagged automatically > as no-name and therefore require an additional tag to flag them as really > having no name. Simple answer: there should be no requirement at all. Sometimes you might want to do it if it makes the nonames map more useful or avoids some confusion. I reckon green for the roof, and a neutral grey for the walls. Dave _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
