Hello, it seems in the two years since the beginning of this thread Osmand's behaviour has changed. I don't have examples for "abandoned" but I have set a couple of forestry tracks to "disused" and they are still visible. Although only in some of the map styles:
- Osmand renders them, - Topo doesn't render them, - Offroad renders one of them but not the other one. The one rendered by Offroad: disused:highway=path foot=yes mtb:scale=0 name=Wieselschneise surface=unpaved The one not rendered by Offroad: disused:highway=path surface=grass I will edit the former now and delete the mtb:scale (it is not cycable any more) and the foot:yes as this is generally unnecessary for forestry tracks. This way I hope to make the track invisible in Osmand without violating the rule "don't map for the renderer". But anyway I would be interested in what are the rules Osmand follows to render or not render features. Could somebody please shed some light on this? Best regards Joachim Am Samstag, 1. Juli 2017 23:56:43 UTC+2 schrieb Lukas: > > I only used the two prefixes so far. I also used 'removed' but not for > tracks. > > A good point. I agree that in your case the road should be kept visible > in OSMAND because an 'abandoned' road isn't automatically impassable or > can still be at least a path. So 'abandoned' ways/tracks should be kept > visible and 'disused' ways/tracks should be made visible. > > A slight optical indication of the prefix would be good. But maybe it is > already well implemented in OSMAND. > > > Am 01.07.2017 um 21:41 schrieb Kevin Kenny: > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 1:17 PM, lukie80de <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I've noticed, that OSMAND renders abandoned tracks > (abandoned:highway=track) > >> with dim narrow brown dashes Example way on OSM. Disused tracks > >> (disused:highway=track) however are not rendered. Furthermore, surface, > >> smoothness and access is rendered for abandoned tracks but not for > disused > >> tracks. > >> > >> One can argue, if such tracks should be displayed at all (is good for > >> orientation but track is not usable anyway) or if they should be > displayed > >> only as dashes without surface, smoothness and access properties to no > to > >> clutter the screen. But disused tracks should be visible too (or even > >> solely), because disused tracks are more important than abandoned > tracks. So > >> is the current state of OSMAND a minor bug? > > > > Is the 'abandoned' or 'disused' the only lifecycle stage on the object? > > > > I have at least one place (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/276425964) > > recently where I've tagged > > > > abandoned:highway=tertiary > > highway=path > > foot=yes > > bicycle=no > > motor_vehicle=no > > smoothness=very_bad > > > > for a road that suffered severe storm damage a few years back, > > is blocked with Jersey barriers at both ends, but remains a public > > right-of-way where it's lawful to walk (and it's entirely hike-able). > > The county still intends to rebuild it, and there are still a couple > > of highway number placards on it. A nearby highway=unclassified > > is posted as a detour. > > > > I'd imagine that OSMand should show such a beast as a walking > > path, perhaps ignoring the 'abandoned' state entirely. > > > > Just posting this to make sure that any fix for this problem doesn't > > mess up the current state of an abandoned way. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Osmand" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osmand/0f400280-30c1-406b-927a-5d7413b9f96e%40googlegroups.com.
