Am 28.07.2010 17:24, schrieb Steve Bennett:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Niccolo Rigacci<o...@rigacci.org> wrote:
For bikers - at least in Italy Alps and Appennini mountains - a
mountain pass along a road is often used as a meeting point or as
a trip destination. So the use of place=locality is not so
misleading.
Yep, I was thinking something similar. Sometimes a pass is a genuine
location/township (eg, Charlotte's Pass ski resort). Sometimes it's
just a mountain pass of no renown.
As a motorbike rider that visited ~400 passes, I know what you both mean
- there are passes that are much more "important" in your trip planning
than others.
But for me place=locality is not about the importance or renown of
something. It's about a place that has a name but no significant other
feature - which is not the case here.
But even more important: Even if you use that tag, it is so generic,
that it provides no real information what you actually want to say to a
map renderer or other data user.
BTW: The usage of place=locality together with mountain_pass=yes is
currently very arbitrary and doesn't reflect the importance of some
passes I saw very well ;-)
Sometimes the situation is much
muddier, like Arthur's Pass in New Zealand, which is both a mountain
pass (of significant renown), a nearby township, and a national park.
So, there are three things to map, but no real problem here :-)
Regarding ULFL's suggestions:
a) We might want to improve rendering of mountain_pass=yes to appear in lower
zoomlevels (e.g. z14 on both default mapnik / osmarender maps)
But we don't necessarily want every mountain pass to appear equally
prominently.
Agreed. It doesn't make sense to render all passes at the same zoomlevel.
b) We might want to discourage the use of place=locality to "enforce" rendering of otherwise
"well known tags" that has "low render priority"
Yes, if there was a better way for the tagger to communicate that this
mountain pass is particularly worthy of viewing at lower zoom levels
So,
c) continue the importance=* debate, and suggest people use
importance=* rather than locality=* for some instances (and continue
to use locality=* where appropriate)
Now the funny part of the discussion.
Wouldn't it be an idea to simply render a pass "importance" based on the
type of highway it is connected to? On my personal map, I'm displaying
all passes that are connected to a highway=track with tracktype=grade1
(and all "higher") - works well for planning my street motorcycle trips.
Otherwise, a single importance tag will be important for which audience?
A mountain_pass on an international hiking route might be important for
hikers ("highest pass on this hiking trip"), but not even accessible by
bike. So marking this one important is pretty misleading for someone not
planning a hiking trip.
If we want to distinguish the importance for specific groups we would
then need a hiking_importance, bicycle_importance,
motorcycle_importance, ...
Regards, ULFL
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
