[OSM-talk] displayed width of roads

[Jo]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   
>>> By co-incidence, I was in contact with another mapper who's been doing
>>> something like this to make low zoom osmarender rendering a bit
>>> prettier. What's everybody's opinion of this kind of practice? Is it
>>> not an example of compromising the data (which we want to endure) to
>>> work around a temporary deficiency in one particular renderer?
>>>       
>> If the slip roads are not really underneath the other roads then
>> yes it is definitely wrong (IMHO). The layer tag is meant to describe
>> the physical ordering of the roads on the ground.
>>     
>
> I've had a similar situation on the talk-de list where some people
> seem to have started adding layer=1 to tram tracks. I don't like this
> all that much (a bridge leading over a road with tram tracks would
> then need to be layer=2 etc) but it's hard to argue with them since
> the tram tracks *are* on top of the road. The layer tag doesn't say by
> how much...
>   
I would argue that the tram tracks should be -1 since they are kind of 
embedded. That way you can take their 1 and add -1, giving 0 once again :-)

Just kidding.

Polyglot