On 22/02/2018 16:57, Greg Troxel wrote:
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
).  The other is to have some sort of modifier (like "bridge", but
different).  that's how "long fords" and embankments at
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.

Indeed (hence why I wrote 'For the US, however, you'd want to do something other than just "downgrading to track"' above).  The "One is to split..." comment is about technically how to do it within an OSM Carto-like style; I'm not trying to suggest how things should look,

Dashed casing seems plausible.  But I realize this is
very hard as we try to represent more and more in a single map.
A dashed casing's certainly technically doable (though I suspect you'd need to fiddle with widths of things to get the visual weight right).  You may to show tunnels (which use a very fine dashed casing - see e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/51.5046/-0.0500 ) in a different way though first.

Best Regards,

Talk-us mailing list

Reply via email to