[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