On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 03:41:28PM -0500, Russ Nelson wrote: > David Carmean writes: > > For the moment I'm ignoring the portions of the "trail" that are > > overlayed on public roads with car traffic.
[snip] > But your "ignoring" part brings up a question for me about > rail-trails. I have a database of NYS railroad rights of way. Quite > often the rail-trail is exactly that: a trail on the railroad. But a > few short sections are inaccessible and follow the highway. CLEARLY > there is value in having the route of the trail in the database. > > Should the trail have its own way which shares the bulk of its nodes > and path with the railroad way? Or should the railroad and highway > portions of the trail be marked with ... something? And how to carry > the name of the trail the entire length even though it travels on the > railroad, highway, and a purpose-built section? I've spent a few minutes looking at the Osmarender rules, and a few looking at the Mapnik rules (which I don't yet understand), and it doesn't look like anything above highway=path does anything with "bicycle", "horse", or "foot" keys. I think the Routing people would have opinions. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
