Paul Johnson wrote: > On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 01:32 +0000, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > >> As an aside: Perhaps the reason that people producing trail maps in >> the past have left out things like motorways is that if they wanted to >> include them they'd have to pay a pile of money to some agency that >> surveys them. Which isn't very nice when motorways aren't even the >> main thing the main thing they're trying to present. So they don't. >> > > At least in the US, such map data is public information, yet trail maps > still rarely include motorways (or if they do, just as a generic, > classless road along with any other ribbons of pavement). I hazard to > guess it's likely a feature that's downplayed or removed due to a lack > of relevancy relative to the data the map is trying to convey. > > I'm surprised at this 'lack of relevancy' argument.
All roads are relevant whether you want, or are able, to cycle down them or not. Imagine a map with just the cycleways (a VERY bare map) as some people seem to want. Imagine trying to follow a cycle route through a big city using just that information. Any cyclist would be lost within 5 minutes! Dave F. _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
