On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 11:00:15AM +0100, Minko wrote:
>You could also think of displaying paved footways/path with bicycle=yes
>as cycleway. This makes it distinguish from a forest mtb trail.
That could do a disservice to on-road and city bicyclists. It is
forbidden to ride on footways (except for short distances, in crossings,
accessing properties and the like) and usually compulsory to ride on a
cycleway. It can be safer and more convenient to ride on a
highway=tertiary or highway=residential than on a poor cycleway. The
bicycle=designated or bicycle=official suggests compulsory usage. I
would like to distinguish the compulsory cycleways from optional ones.
I tested the 0x0d and have somewhat mixed results. It does not show up
at all in QLandkarteGT. If it really works on all devices and in
MapSource and RoadTrip, I guess that we can dismiss that as a
QLandkarteGT bug.
The Edge 705 draws the 0x0d as a black thin line, with the default label
of 'Line' (translated from Finnish). Bicycle and foot routing are OK,
and car routing looks like access=destination when I tested routing to a
point on such a line.
The black thin line would be a better rendering for cycleways than the
brown dashed line (0x16, default label 'trail'). If the 0x0d works
everywhere, then I would rather use the solid black thin line 0x0d for
cycleways and the brown dashed line 0x16 for footways and paths.
>And how about highway=track & bicycle=designated [0x16] ?
Do you have a photo of a traffic sign that specifically allows bicycles
on a highway=track? I would not expect any traffic signs along a
highway=track, and I would expect tracks to be smoothness=bad unless
tagged otherwise.
Marko
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
