On Feb 5, 2008 4:43 PM, Ben Laenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All the better if there's an existing tag already, but how does that > work with current tagging, I thought it > was "type=route", "route=bicycle", "network=ncn", and will this be > another tag "ncn=yes|proposed|etc"? Isn't the "ncn=yes" redundant > information then?
Sorry, see Dave's translation to relations-speak, which uses slightly different tags. This would be state= on the cycle route relation - state=proposed on a relation gets handled the same as ncn=proposed on a way. > I see this: > http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/osm/?zoom=12&lat=6652000.91116&lon=496400.42424&layers=B00 > > It looks random to me, but it could be "deterministic chaos" of > course :-) (/me adds a few more zoom levels to Antwerpen) It looks rubbish either way. As do the the nodenet numbers, but that's on my todo list too. > > My preference would be to draw the lines side-by-side, but that's > > what I'll call the "tube map problem" since mapnik can't do that. > > That could work as well of course, though it looks much harder to > implement compared to the wider vs thinner lines... But it could be a > problem when there are lots of routes running in parallel (like the > opposite sides of a canal or a dual carriageway even). > > > It's common for routes to be distinguished on signs by colour as much > > as name or reference. I think they should be mapped with > > signed_colour = yellow, since that makes it clear. Renderers can then > > know that the colour is important, but still choose to ignore it if > > they wish (or map the colours to a chosen palette, or keep all the > > local routes in blue and put little coloured borders on them or > > similar). Using "signed_colour" clarifies what we mean. > > I see, I was trying to avoid real colour names, but I guess we could > further extend this colour tag to things like bus routes. I don't like > signed_colour though, as that suggests that it's the colour of the > signs, and I could well see someone adding "signed_colour=green" for > all ncn, rcn and some lcn routes, since all those signs are green. yeah, I get your point. How do we make clear that we mean "the Green route and the Yellow route" > I just use "name=X" for that currently (since it's the relation that has > this name tag, not the road, but don't ask me how to put that name on a > starting point, could the starting point be a member of the route > relation as well?)... Again, just name= works fine when using relations, ncn_name= would be needed for ways. As for the nodes, theoretically you could have a node in the relation, but the importing process for osm2pgsql would ignore it (even our route-relations-aware version that Dave developed). That's why nodenets currently have a separate node. Unless Dave corrects me on this. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
