On 03/07/13 08:52, Steve Bennett wrote:
FYI, the map style I'm working on for cycle touring does make this
distinction: http://emscycletours.site44.com/map2.html#egrt
Nice work !
You might be right - but on a technical front, it's no more burdensome
to show all of [unsealed, unpaved, gravel,
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:42 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
Just a thought here, we'd really like the renderers to show
unpaved/unsealed/whatever roads differently from sealed ones. In particular,
the mapnik rendered slippery map on the OSM website
FYI, the map style I'm
On 3 July 2013 08:52, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Also a quick stat for you. 165,000 highways in Australia have a
surface tag. 718,000 don't.
Surprising stat. Especially considering paved is considered the default.
it's no more burdensome
to show all of [unsealed, unpaved,
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
Surprising stat. Especially considering paved is considered the default.
Yeah - I try to specify it wherever possible though, outside cities.
I really like multi-level tags.
natural=water
water=lake
surface=unpaved
Ian, at the time, someone, I am not sure who, preferred 'unsealed'
arguing that unpaved did not mean the same thing. Roads can be sealed in
ways that do not really mean paved.
Personally, I did not care, being more interested in getting it
documented so we all used the same tag. However, now,
5 matches
Mail list logo
