On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 03:01:57PM +0000, Dave F. wrote:
>On 28/02/2011 12:04, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:26:39AM +0000, Dave F. wrote:
>>> Could you expand on what you mean by footway?
>> I mean the same as highway=footway, or
>> {add access = no; add foot = yes} [0x16 road_class=0 road_speed=0 resolution
>> 23]
>>
>> My reasoning was that sports tracks may or may not be closed from the
>> general public. When not in use, they could be used as shortcuts by
>> pedestrians, but not necessarily for other means of transportation.
>
>But that would mean *all* linear leisure=tracks are rendered as
>footpaths. This is clearly incorrect.
Previously, the linear leisure=track were not rendered at all (or they
were rendered as polygons, before WanMil committed the polygon-closing
patch).
>You should make use of the access tag to clarify public access
Can you clarify what you mean? The default style does generate map
elements that are access=private or access=no. The only exception is one
that I implemented a while back, to hide service and emergency exit
tunnels to a railway tunnel.
What is displayed on the map is not necessarily accessible by the
general public.
The translation (which you quoted above) already adds access=no and
foot=yes if these keys are not already present. If the source data
carries foot=no, then the line should not be routable at all. If it
carries some access tags, then the way is available for routing in those
modes of transport.
>A sports track (such as a running track) is still a sports track when
>not in use & should be rendered as so.
The problem is the limited number of way types.
>If there is a defined public way that is occasionally used as a sports
>track (mountain bike track, for example) then that track could be put
>into a route relation.
Right. This is even more so with seasonal tracks, such as Nordic skiing
routes or snowmobile routes. The underlying ways may be paths or roads
in summer, or they may be in the middle of lakes or agricultural fields.
Relations come to the rescue.
>Multi polygon relations make the area tag redundant.
WanMil, could we automatically add area=yes to all multipolygon relation
members? Or perhaps mkgmap:area=yes?
Best regards,
Marko
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
