This is the sort of map I envision:
http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/Schmeeckle/Map/images/schmeeckle_map.jpg
As an aside, I like the style of that map for doing walking routes (e.g.
on Freemap) Wonder how easy it would be to generate using GD / PDF
libraries etc?
Nick
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
This is the sort of map I envision:
http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/Schmeeckle/Map/images/schmeeckle_map.jpg
As an aside, I like the style of that map for doing walking routes (e.g.
on Freemap) Wonder how easy it would be to generate using GD / PDF
libraries etc?
That I
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact, highway=path makes it easier on renderers.
That's a bold statement for someone who has no experience running a renderer.
Without using highway=path, renderers need to understand every single
specialized way.
[...]
Alex Mauer wrote:
In fact, highway=path makes it easier on renderers.
Without using highway=path, renderers need to understand every single
specialized way. snowmobileway, skiway, nordicskiway, telemarkskiway,
alpineskiway, elephantway, etc. When someone introduces a new specialized
way,
Andy Allan wrote:
What an absolutely terrible idea. This is astounding daft. If I have
Yes, I am clearly mad. I appreciate that.
chosen to render paths for cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians on
my map, why on earth would I want to accidentally render every other
variant when someone
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andy Allan wrote:
What an absolutely terrible idea. This is astounding daft. If I have
Yes, I am clearly mad. I appreciate that.
chosen to render paths for cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians on
my map, why on earth
Dave Stubbs wrote:
If the point is to show all possible paths, then you'll also want to
similarly show all the roads as well? In which case an else rule on
highway=* would solve the problem.
The point is to show all possible paths and highlight one particular
subset of them, yeah.
This is the
On Wednesday 06 August 2008 00:45:20 Dave Stubbs wrote:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon Burgess wrote:
The only thing I see an issue with is introducing the specific
'highway=path' tag. I see this as an unnecessary complication.
I guess it's a
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 06:33:10PM -0500, Alex Mauer wrote:
So it really depends on interpretation. In particular, footways have a
particular legal status in the UK which doesn't apply to every place
that you can walk.
Just as a point of information, this isn't actually true. As far as I am
OK, perhaps nonsensical was too strong. Against the intent of the
highway tag certainly, and I'd add defeating the purpose of the access
series of tags as well. I hope you agree with my point that the legal
accessibility of a way doesn't belong in the highway key, especially
when we have a
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:07 AM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Incorrect. You neglected to account for the existing tags on those
509k/425k. There's actually a net gain (reduction) in the number of
tags needed. The simplest cases (cycleway/footway/bridleway) are
identical, obviously.
Stephen Gower wrote:
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 06:33:10PM -0500, Alex Mauer wrote:
So it really depends on interpretation. In particular, footways have a
particular legal status in the UK which doesn't apply to every place
that you can walk.
call a pavement and you might call a sidewalk.
Hello,
Now that the highway=path has been moved to the official features
page, is there any more or less agreed way of tagging marked paths? I
see a lot of different proposal pages on this, but no real consensus. I
myself have been tagging my local area using trailblazed=yes, but it
would be
Brejc wrote:
Hello,
Now that the highway=path has been moved to the official features
page, is there any more or less agreed way of tagging marked paths? I
see a lot of different proposal pages on this, but no real consensus. I
myself have been tagging my local area using
Igor Brejc wrote:
Now that the highway=path has been moved to the official features
page, is there any more or less agreed way of tagging marked paths? I
see a lot of different proposal pages on this, but no real consensus. I
myself have been tagging my local area using trailblazed=yes,
Hi,
Tom Hughes wrote:
It was approved on the basis of a tiny vote on the wiki and I would
say there is zero chance of most people switching from the tags that
have been in use for several years to some new scheme that, as I
understand it, requires about five tags for each path.
Given
Tom Hughes wrote:
It was approved on the basis of a tiny vote on the wiki and I would
Uh, what? 34 votes is one of the largest votes of any proposed/approved
feature on the wiki.
say there is zero chance of most people switching from the tags that
have been in use for several years to
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Tom Hughes wrote:
It was approved on the basis of a tiny vote on the wiki and I would
say there is zero chance of most people switching from the tags that
have been in use for several years to some new scheme that, as I
understand it, requires about five tags for
Alex Mauer wrote:
Brejc wrote:
Hello,
Now that the highway=path has been moved to the official features
page, is there any more or less agreed way of tagging marked paths? I
see a lot of different proposal pages on this, but no real consensus. I
myself have been tagging my local
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I've never been a friend of that voting business but it seems to get
more absurd every day. Is it perhaps time now to have a vote on
abolishing votes altogehter - or should we continue to let people vote
on whatever they like and ignore the results?
Do you have a
On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 15:20 -0500, Alex Mauer wrote:
Tom Hughes wrote:
It was approved on the basis of a tiny vote on the wiki and I would
Uh, what? 34 votes is one of the largest votes of any proposed/approved
feature on the wiki.
say there is zero chance of most people switching
Igor Brejc wrote:
Which tag value would I use for a path through the forest that is
clearly visible, but with no markings? There are a lot of those in Slovenia.
It's probably not necessary to tag it specially at all as I expect this
is the default, but it looks like trail_visibility=excellent
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
I've never been a friend of that voting business but it seems to get
more absurd every day. Is it perhaps time now to have a vote on
abolishing votes altogehter - or should we continue to let people vote
Dave Stubbs wrote:
Gotcha. Excepth that, assuming you /can/ walk on it, that's what the
rest of us have been using highway=footway for since the dawn of time
(well, dawn of map features maybe. well, last couple of years at
least).
If it happened to have another purpose (ie: bikes or horses)
24 matches
Mail list logo
