> However, before talking about relation, I think a specific value should > be introduced for the _highway key_ : “cyclehighway" for instance. This > would help the renderer to show those infrastructures differently than > the usual “cycleway” (the infamous "piste cyclable” that usually sounds > like an insult for most serious bikers).
We don't map for the renderer (or A renderer for that matter). It's a bad idea to start molding tags in order to get a pleasant look in the standard map stylesheet, it's prone to change. And you disregard all other (specialiased/thema) maps. A relation is the best idea. A renderer doesn't need a special kind of highway=cyclehighway tag in order to distinguish between the goals of 2 cycleways. But I still believe that this cyclehighway thing is just a simple collection of cycleway/lanes etc..., a long one and unless it's specifically marked like Sander stated, it doesn't really deserve special treatment. I know for a fact that in Duffel the cycleway that goes to Antwerp goes over into a plain road at the train station and back again on the 'highway' a few kilometers north. But it's still a regular cycleway for those who use it to go to school in Duffel, it's not a cyclehighway. I know that area well and it's not even a cycleway, it's a lane there. So your proposed solution causes all sort of troubles as highway can only contain 1 value. Hence this is where a relation is a lot better and more workable and the correct approach. It's exactly why a relation exists in OSM, to indicate things that belong together in some fashion even though they aren't the same at all, or even next to each other. Glenn > > This is however something that has to be discussed on a higher level > than Belgium. Where is this place ? Right here I believe :) _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
