Toby Speight wrote: > 0> In article <[email protected]>, > 0> Felix Hartmann <URL:mailto:[email protected]> ("Felix") wrote: > > Felix> If there is a footway with smoothness=very_bad > Felix> > Felix> Only one of the above rules will be enacted. > Felix> > Felix> If you want that both happens, you have to put a rule: > Felix> > Felix> smoothness=very_bad & highway=footway {add access = no; add foot = > yes,......} > Felix> > Felix> > Felix> As the first rule matches, no other unconditional rule will be enacted > Felix> on a way/line. Only a condition [0x*...] rule will match again. > > Ah, I understand now. Thanks for explaining it for me. > > That's a bit of a nuisance, really. ;-( > > > 0> In article <[email protected]>, > 0> Torsten Leistikow <URL:mailto:[email protected]> ("Torsten") wrote: > > Torsten> You could take a look at the style-branch, which deals with > Torsten> this problem. Unfortunatly this branch does not solve the > Torsten> problem completely and there isn't much work in progress on > Torsten> this topic at the moment. > > That's certainly interesting to me. I don't suppose there's a wiki page > that documents what problems it's trying to solve, and what approach is > taken? If not, I'm willing to start one, with my own ideas, and ask for > corrections. > Besides having bugs, the style branch has the approach that only the first rule is matched. So you could write rules from more restrictive to less restrictive.
Ideas about how it (from the principle, not the code) had been inside the discussions about the style-branch. Look into the e-mail archives for it. I must say that I prefer the current approach over the style-branch approach, though both will not help you to create millions of lines if you want to have several keys matched. But at least can leave your rules in thematically correct orders, instead of needing to split the rules for order (making it very very hard to copy/paste/create_with_spreadsheet the rules. Ideal in my eyes would be several passes. So you classify run 1, run 2, run x and each subsequent run will match all lines as if no rule had matched yet - but also prefer to have no need for ordering but inside on run go from specific to unspecific. > _______________________________________________ > mkgmap-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev > _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
