<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Hi All</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks to a fellow mailing list member my knowledge base on converting OSM to Garmin IMG gradually growing. Trouble I been Windows based means even simple things like reading the type file is made hard until you wake up that Windows default Notepad is useless as it does not understand line feeds. </div><div><br></div><div>It is interesting to see the native line and POI styles in the Garmin. Also the elaborate map rendering programs that appear to be designed for raster based solutions. </div><div><br></div><div>Anyway I get the feeling that there might be enough line types for say 4wd maps. Also found using the profile feature of the Garmins can easily swap between maps so no reason not to have a series if maps optimized for your activity. </div><div><br>Cheers<div>Brett Russell</div><div>PO Box 94</div><div>Launceston Tas. 7250</div><div>Australia</div><div>0419 374 971</div></div><div><br>On 03/07/2013, at 6:33 PM, "David Bannon" <<a href="mailto:dbannon@internode.on.net">dbannon@internode.on.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Brett, pretty nicely put, agree
unreservedly !<br>
<br>
Might add though, while we all see lots to do, OSM is already an
incredibly useful thing. I am currently travelling from Central
Victoria to Far North Queensland and relying on OSM pretty much
exclusively. I'll be hitting some interesting dirt roads and feel
confident that I'll be fine!<br>
<br>
Where I am heading was not mapped on either OSM or Google but I
could quite easily get some approximation in to OSM via Bing and
will refine it when I am there. How good is that ?<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
On 03/07/13 18:16, Brett Russell wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:SNT130-W528C74BFABB42CE6D2CC85AF730@phx.gbl" type="cite">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr">Hi<br>
<br>
As a newcomer to OSM one of the more challenging things is
finding the universally accepted tagging and more importantly
for me the rendering in both the website map and Garmin maps. <br>
<br>
It is one of the niggles that say with natural=water and with
categorizing further to water=lake or water=dam, or water=tarn
etc that JOSM brings them up as errors. I quite like the sub
category approach as a render has a choice how far they go down
to without having huge statements to cover potentially infinite
number of classifications. More than happy for most uses
natural=water is good enough but be great for some to identify
natural lakes and lakes that are reservoirs. <br>
<br>
I did read an interesting thread debating the design of maps and
given the huge potential number of users I think it not
unreasonable to have different rendering for road, 4WD,
bushwalkers, kayakers, etc. It would be great that an approach
could be agreed that say sealed versus unsealed (happy with
unpaved) could exist and for the 4WD brigade a sublevel of cars,
high ground clearance 2WD, and so on could be used. Bit like
the rendering of rivers. For most people river and stream with
the option of intermittent is perfectly ok but for a kayaker use
to rivers graded by difficulty a sub category and a rendering
option would be ideal. <br>
<br>
Heck, even Polatch 2 does not have natural=peak as a preset yet
Polatch 1 did. <br>
<br>
Given the non centralized nature of OSM maybe the above is a
pipe dream but I for one would be happy to invest the time in
creating Garmin and web based tile maps optimized for
bushwalking. I am sure that if a render was a 4WD enthusiast
then standard tagging backed up by Garmin maps (plus printable
or web based tiles) would be quickly done. I just find
extracting how-to guides to rendering rather cryptic and missing
vital steps. Anyway like anything in OSM if I do not like it
then it is up to me to map it or come-up with a solution. For
me one of the great sites is the OSM Australia as it cookie cuts
some reasonable Garmin maps. Be great if we could build on
that. As I hold, unless a tag is rendered then it is more
academic than practical.<br>
<br>
Just my two point five cents worth.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
<br>
Brett Russell<br>
<br>
<div>> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:32:34 +1000<br>
> From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dbannon@internode.on.net">dbannon@internode.on.net</a><br>
> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stevagewp@gmail.com">stevagewp@gmail.com</a><br>
> CC: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org">talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] surface=unsealed in 4wd/dirt road
tagging<br>
> <br>
> On 03/07/13 08:52, Steve Bennett wrote:<br>
> > FYI, the map style I'm working on for cycle touring
does make this <br>
> > distinction:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://emscycletours.site44.com/map2.html#egrt">http://emscycletours.site44.com/map2.html#egrt</a> <br>
> Nice work !<br>
> <br>
> > You might be right - but on a technical front, it's
no more burdensome <br>
> > to show all of [unsealed, unpaved, gravel, dirt] as
a dashed line <br>
> > rather than just, say, unpaved. Steve <br>
> Are you rendering that with Mapnik ? I planned to do
something similar <br>
> to show the "Guardians of the Slippery Map" how cool it
was but found it <br>
> non trivial and have not had time to get back to it.<br>
> <br>
> David<br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Talk-au mailing list<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></blockquote></body></html>