Alex Mauer wrote: > On 09/09/2009 05:30 AM, Dave F. wrote: > >>> 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! >> > > Here’s a local cycle trail map[1], which is pretty much as Paul > described. It does include the interstate highway (right hand side, > marked with an interstate shield and number 39), however it doesn’t > really differentiate that highway from any other road. > > -Alex Mauer “hawke” > > 1. http://www.greencircletrail.org/trail_map.aspx > > Alex
I'm not sure that _is_ what Paul desires. To quote - "I hope the cyclemap stops rendering motorways and footways that don't have the bicycle=yes tag." I'm not even sure if the waterways would be acceptable to him! This is my idea of a well documented cycle map: http://www.bristolbathrailwaypath.org.uk/library/Railway_Path_Leaflet_Part_2.pdf It's very clear even if you've not been there & well labelled. OCM/OSM is very close to that. That Plover River looks interesting. Cheers Dave F. _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
