Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: > I'd vote for complete=no, and rendering it with an arrow on the > unconnected end of the way. Sometimes, e.g. if you pass under a bridge, > but haven't gone back to pass over it, you may have a way with arrows on > both ends. That is fine. I'd allow and render towards=[name of place], > but that get's confusing in the 2 ended passing under a bridge case.
I agree, complete=no makes sense. But what should this be applied to? Nodes? Ways? I suggest it should be added to a node that's at the end of a way to signafy that the way continues alone roughly the same direction as it was going. I think it should be rendered as a a few dots in the same direction and the same colour and thickness as the original way. Thoughts? Rory _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk