> For the US, however, you'd want to do something other than just
> "downgrading to track".  There are a couple of options I suspect:

In the US, treating an unpaved road as "track" does not seem right.
Besides the surface issue, there is a very strong notion of legal status
between a "road" (often on its own parcel, traffic laws apply)and a
"track" (just a place where you could drive within some larger lot, and
often considered that traffic laws do not apply).

It also seems to me that the typical rendering of track is heavier and
more visually prominent than highway=residential, where for a
general-use map it seems that tracks are lesser ways.

> One is to split unpaved roads out as a separate "road type" altogether
> (that's how sidewalk and verge are handled as seen at
> https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15&lat=-24.99273&lon=135.02137
> ).  The other is to have some sort of modifier (like "bridge", but
> different).  that's how "long fords" and embankments at
> https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=15&lat=-24.99958&lon=135.0693
> are handled.

I suspect I'm failing to understand something, but it seems that

  highway=residential surface=paved (or no tag, default)
  highway=residential surface=unpaved

should have rendering that is similar in weight, but with some clue that
one is not paved.  Dashed casing seems plausible.  But I realize this is
very hard as we try to represent more and more in a single map.  I
cannot quibble with your advice to actually try something...

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Talk-us mailing list

Reply via email to