>>> are the following tags rendering on the main openstreetmap renderers? >>> If so, can designation=public_footpath appear without highway=footway. >>> If so, that does then bring up the issue of good rendering, and > > I think you are conflating two things: > >>> in tagging, it makes sense to describe both the physical object and >>> the legal issues. I think everyone agrees that these are conceptually >>> separate, and that our tagging scheme often carries both meanings. > > In rendering, maps can be made for many purposes by anyone. You're > basically complaining that the standard rendering doesn't do what you > want. >
I'm complaining not because it's not what I want, but because 1) it's not possible to map correctly. 2) the system is not particularly neat/organised. I do want it to be better yes, but there's rational behind my point, it's not me complaining becuase I don't have what I want...I'm not that simple. > In the case of a way which is physically track but is also a > public_footpath but not a public_bridleway or a byway (please excuse > errors - I'm the US, but I hope you get the point), a map could choose > > a) show a track (because that's what is physically) > > b) show a footway (because that's what most people can do with it) > > c) show a track with some tint to show both concepts (note that we > already have no-access tint) > > d) skip it, because a clean view for normal driving is wanted > > Each of these 4 choices will make some people happy and not others. > So having a debate about the right one for the default render is not > going to be too useful. If it is a) (just a track), show just a track. If it is b) (a footway (public access)) show a footway. If it is both, we need to be able to show both. For c) it then has assumptions made about highway=track. If you need to add no=access, then has highway=track implied some access, and in which case what? For d) I'm unclear what you mean by 'it'. If you mean the public bridleway that is on the track then that is a fair point if the map render is made for drivers. However it is not, it's beyond a 'streetmap' as the footways and bridleways demonstrated from day 1. > The data and the styles are all free. Perhaps you can render your own, > and share your style. A proposed specific change to the style file to > implement some form of c with an example rendered is soemthing that I > think would be more well received. I do render my own. I have shared a style in the initial email. An additional image is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Tracktype_example.PNG this is some 5 years old now. I would personally propose that a track (phisical) is renderered with core/casing in some form, so that a coloured access right can render on top and there is no clash. However, this 'is' just what 'I' want. It goes beyond just addressing the problem, and even getting some acceptance of it. What I am trying to Emphasise is what map features says is near meaningless if it isn't rendering, becuase the renderer will influence what people do. So as far as I can see highway=footway still clashes with highway=track on the OSM renders, even if there is a sorta fix on map features. > That said, highway= implies that the object is a public or private way > (US terms, but usable by the public), except for highway=service and > highway=track. See this is part of the issue. It implies different things, or many things. Ideally it should be clear, and that is what I would like to try to sort out. If values appear under the same key then there shouldn't really be the 'excepts'. Also it's more complex that just implying 'public or private'. 'motorway' implies all motorway regulations and properties. Track's in the UK don't have this, they have the regulations of the 'something else' that may or may not go along them. > Those access defaults are perhaps a mess, but the main point is that > there are established clear semantics for the tags. > In the case of physical tracks with various public_foo status, it seems > there is a clear way. Can you ellaborate on this? I'm not following. What is this clear way, and would it be possible to see an example of this please? Sorry if this isn't appearing correctly in the archives...I'm not really clear on how make replies attach to specific messages. Also,I'm off for 3 days, so apologies for a slow responce to come.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
