[OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

[Andy Allan]

On 10/1/07, David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com> wrote:
> On 01/10/2007 10:15, Mike Collinson wrote:
> > I agree with Tapio.  highway=xxxx, surface=paved/unpaved has been on the
> > Map Features page and well used for a long time now.  By all means have a render
> > rule for a depreciated highway=unsurfaced but it has no place on the Map Features
> > page and is just plain confusing for any country that has unsurfaced roads in its
> > system.
>
> Given this discussion, I'd like to change my
>    highway=track
>    abutters=residential
> which I had used for (quite a large number of) unsurfaced residential
> roads, to
>    highway=residential
>    surface=unpaved
>
> However, I'm reluctant to do this unless the rendering supports it too.
> Does it already notice these?
>
> If not, can mapnik and osmarender be changed to do something to
> distinguish the surface=unpaved? Perhaps a dashed instead of solid edge?
> (That would work for highway=secondary+surface=unpaved as well, whereas
> rendering unsurfaced's like highway=track wouldn't).

>From Steve's email that started the thread and my own experience of
mapnik, the answer is 'yes but'. It's feasible, but it just takes a
lot of typing, since there are already many roads definitions based on
different scales, and so this would (more or less) double the number
of rendering rules for roads*. This is the main reason I started the
cycle map using the existing mapnik definitions, since I quickly
realised how much effort had gone into them. I'm now trying to work
out the best way of keeping the advances in mapnik styles (as done by
steve) reflected into the cycle map - again, non-trivial.

Cheers,
Andy

* Well, your suggestion doubles the number of casing rules, but that's
about equal to the number of road stroke rules and you get the point
anyway.