[Talk-us] UK assumptions that don't hold in the U.S.

[Nathan Edgars II]

I've noticed some odd things on OpenCycleMap and other renderings, and I 
think it's due to a difference in how things are in the UK vs. here.


*Most railways have passenger service. Thus OCM (and the transport map) 
show all rail lines.
*Tracks are useful for cycling. When you zoom in on OCM, tracks are 
highlighted the same as footways. But a track is just a narrow (usually) 
unpaved road, and is worse for cycling than a low-traffic paved road. 
This also shows up on renderings such as http://www.itoworld.com/map/26 
where tracks are included in path/cycle-path etc rather than road.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] UK assumptions that don't hold in the U.S.

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 5/29/2012 10:00 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 05/29/12 11:57, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

*Most railways have passenger service. Thus OCM (and the transport map)
show all rail lines.


But isn't a railway an obstacle for cyclists no matter what services
they support?


Sure. But that would support their being shown at close zooms, not all 
the way out at 7.


On 5/29/2012 10:16 AM, James Umbanhowar wrote:
 Many tracks are quite usable by bikes with big tires, e.g. mountain 
bikes.


Agreed. But so is every paved road. What OCM does is give more 
prominence to a track (even one marked access=private!) than a 
residential street, for example right in the middle of here: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.3866lon=-81.2697zoom=13layers=C


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us