[Talk-us] Marking closed bridges
Matthias Julius
lists at julius-net.net
Fri Dec 4 17:43:19 GMT 2009
Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net> writes:
> On 12/3/09 11:27 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>> On 12/3/09 11:00 PM, David Fawcett wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that it would be good to have a standard answer. I am
>>> thinking that the tag should be used for both symbology and
>>> connectivity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> i'm going to try out the suggested access=no/description=blahblahblah method
>> see what i think about it.
>>
> and now that i've seen it, the mapnik rendering is not distinguishable
> from access=private
>
> on the other hand, we don't tag to get a specific rendering effect from
> an existing renderer.
Exactly! Don't tag for the renderer!
>
> maybe an additional term on access ("access=closed"), so that some
> future renderer will be
> able to distinguish the different reasons for restricted access.
If the public does not have access at all then access=no is the
appropriate tag, IMO.
If you want to indicate the reason that should go into a separate tag.
I don't think it is a good idea to invent a new access tag for every
nuance of access restriction. No application can keep up with all
those.
If you want access=no to be rendered differently from access=private
you can try to convince the people in charge of the rendering styles
to do that.
Matthias
More information about the Talk-us
mailing list