<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>Rendering issues/discussions are on the github page as stated. Please continue there if needed.<br><br>But 2 things here.<br><br>This is looks more similar because <br>a) It is though a forest if the background is lighter it would be less of an issue.<br>b) If Track type is not defined (or =grade3) then it looks similar. Different track types render differently. <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype</a> It has rendering examples although I think they may have changed slightly recently with new changes to osmcarto.<br><br>In general ideas of those doing the osmcarto stuff is that the forest/woods and grassed areas are rendered too dark. They will likely change in the future.<br>However also many think we have too many different types and there is confusion for all the dashed/dotted lines (purple, green, red, blue, black, etc, etc). There may be some consolidation at some point (which may/may not make this edge case worse/better)<br><br>Hope that helps.<br><br><div><hr id="stopSpelling">Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 19:38:23 +0200<br>From: A.Pirard.Papou@gmail.com<br>To: tagging@openstreetmap.org<br>Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?<br><br>
<div class="ecxmoz-cite-prefix">On 2014-05-19 18:35, SomeoneElse wrote
:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:537A32BC.1070609@mail.atownsend.org.uk">
<div class="ecxmoz-cite-prefix">André Pirard wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:537A2D78.7010204@gmail.com">
Hi,<br>
<div class="ecxmoz-cite-prefix"> <br>
This is about OSM ticket <a href="https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/5163" target="_blank">https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/5163</a>:<br>
<blockquote>The rendering of highway=path and
highway=track is barely distinguishable.</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Just my 2p, but personally I don't think that the rendering of
highway=track and highway=path on the standard map are "barely
distinguishable". Arguably (very much IMHO) there's too much
differentiation of different sorts of tracks, paths, footways,
bridleways, and cycleways rather than too little.<br>
</blockquote>
On 2014-05-19 19:27, Matthijs Melissen wrote :<br>
<blockquote>No. In this particular example, the tagging
is fine and tagging them as unclassified would be a mistake.<br>
</blockquote>
???<br>
Did you make that test: asking people which is track or path? Where
walkers and tractors would go?<br>
<br>
<img src="cid:part2.07020608.07080506@gmail.com" alt=""><br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:537A32BC.1070609@mail.atownsend.org.uk">If you feel strongly about it why not knock up a
rendering with more differentiation between track and path and
invite people to compare with the current standard map?<br>
</blockquote>
¿¿¿ ¡¡¡ That is exactly what I did with showing OSM and IGN
(SomeoneElse's ;-)) maps side by side !!! ???<br>
No other map would think of not differentiating better those two
ways and all the similar cases.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>André.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<br>_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</div> </div></body>
</html>