[OSM-talk] Highways with surface=unpaved; highway=secondary_link
Michael Collinson
mike at ayeltd.biz
Fri Sep 28 10:07:49 BST 2007
At 09:50 AM 9/28/2007, Tom Hughes wrote:
>In message <5ffb04320709271751t22b4bf24w177095eb4eb9e399 at mail.gmail.com>
> Andrew MacKinnon <andrewpmk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Could someone with svn access add highways tagged surface=unpaved to
> > the mapnik and osmarender rules files, so that they render like
> > highways tagged highway=unsurfaced (which are rendered in mapnik but
> > not osmarender). Surface=unpaved is listed in map features, but
> > highway=unsurfaced is not (I presume that it is depreciated). In
> > osmarender, I would suggest rendering unpaved highways like
> > unclassified but with dashed borders.
>
>Personally I've tended to use highway=unsurfaced or highway=track
>as I didn't realise the surface tag was in use.
>
>I can see that having them as separate concepts is useful in some
>countries where more roads are unsurfaced though.
Yes. Examples: Stockholm has unpaved residential roads. Australia has
many "normal" through unpaved rural roads or with unpaved stretches -
being able to see them at a glance is useful for route planning (and
for rental cars where you generally can't use them!). Many other
countries have unpaved arterial routes.
> > Also, could someone add highway=secondary_link to osmarender? It isn't
> > actually in map features, but it is widely used, and mapnik renders
> > it. It should be rendered like highway=secondary.
>
>Do you really have secondary roads with grade separated junctions?
In Stockholm there are quite a few and can be quite complex, a thin
line link rendering would be a useful addition. I've experimented
with oneway primary_link or unclassified but both look ugly and are
not correct.
Mike
Stockholm
More information about the talk
mailing list