[OSM-talk] mark a way as secondary

Andy Robinson Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk
Sat Jun 10 13:24:56 BST 2006


Valid argument Joerg. The reason I didn't think that way at the time was
that I was considering how such a combined pathway would be rendered. To me
it was simpler to think of displaying it with a predefined dual use look
rather than rendering the highway first, say, and then the tramway over the
top.

Andy Robinson
Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-
>bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Ostertag
>Sent: 10 June 2006 12:44
>To: talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] mark a way as secondary
>
>> >
>> >Well, this is a part of the definition, I dislike even more. Map
>Features
>> >suggest using "railway=tram".
>> >
>> >Why not just "tram=yes"? Or even simplier, just adding another way for
>the
>> >tram line with "class=tramway"? This would be much more understandable
>to
>> >me (hm... maybe not as easy with the online applet..?)
>>
>> But you cannot have "class=tramway" AND "class=highway" at the same time.
>> That was the reason for the more descriptive & separate keys.
>
>Yes, and I would create 2 separate way for this; since they could also have
>different attributes like lanes=3, height=3m, ... and these would mostly be
>different for the tram and for the cars
>
>-
>Joerg
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk







More information about the talk mailing list