pla16021 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 28 09:59:15 UTC 2019
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 00:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
> Question of my own - is there any particular reason that a berm couldn't
> just be rendered the same as a wall?
That question prompts another question.
Why render it as a wall? Since a berm is a type of embankment, why not
render it as an
embankment? Either way, if you render it the same as an existing object,
and it serves the
same purpose as an existing object, the carto people are likely to veto it
under their "no
Even if you persuade the carto people to render berms, it will go on their
long to-do list and
may take a long time to appear.
You also have the problem of having to inspect a lot of existing
embankments to see
if some of them should be retagged as berms. And the problem of mappers,
newbies, wondering what the difference between the two is.
Others have proposed a berm=* subtag to differentiate types of berms. Why
use a subtag for embankments? That will render immediately, because
man_made=embankment already renders and we'd just use the subtag to declare
type of embankment it is (berm, stop butt, whatever). Throw in an
(or embankment:purpose or whatever) and you've pretty much covered it. As
a subtag, it's
optional, so no pressure to revisit existing embankments and newbies can
ignore it when
adding embankments if they don't know whether it's a barrier or for noise
Unless there's some deep physical or philosophical difference between an
a berm, I'd go with subtagging embankments.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging