On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 06:20:03PM +0100, Adrian wrote: >In my opinion, tagging with layer=-1 in that particular case is not >wrong, but tagging long stretches with layer=-1 would be wrong. Looking >at r1445 in the mailing list, it was clearly the intention to hide >underground railways. In light of that, I suggest that the mkgmap >default style might be modified to test for !(tunnel=yes) instead of >!(layer<0), for all four types of railway.
Good idea. Would you happen to have an idea how to tag (and in mkgmap) hide a highway=service tunnel for accessing a railway tunnel? Here is an example that I added some time ago: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/69679696 Last time I was bicycling/mapping there, I got confused, because I thought that there would be a connection between the highway=residential (Kaskelanpolku) and the highway=secondary (Lahdentie). Of course, the tunnel would not be considered for routing, because the ways share no nodes, but the ways seemed to be connected on the map display. Marko _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
