I wanted to make the same proposal as Andrew. If the smoothness or the pavedness was rendered independently of the colour and independently of the width, with a different fill pattern, maybe this would be quite intuitive for the users (the more rugged the surface the more dense the pattern).
Just my 2 cents. Cheers S -- "Le mot progrès n'aura aucun sens tant qu'il y aura des enfants malheureux" -- Albert Einstein "A journey does not need reasons. Before long, it proves to be reason enough in itself. One thinks that one is going to make a journey, yet soon it is the journey that makes or unmakes you." -- Nicolas Bouvier Photos de voyages, photos de montagne: http://www.henriod.info On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Andrew Buck <[email protected]>wrote: > One additional thing you might use in differentiating paved vs unpaved is > doing something like putting a dotted line down the middle of paved roads > (like what they look like in reality), having kind of a grey patchy texture > overlaid on the unpaved roads, to make them look bumpy, and then omitting > both of these features for roads of unknown surface. > > In this way the symbols are reminiscent of the real world concepts they > represent and the map is more 'intuitive' leading to less reliance on the > key and more understanding from people right from the first time they see > it. > > -AndrewBuck > > _______________________________________________ > HOT mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot > >
_______________________________________________ HOT mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
