logo separator

[mkgmap-dev] [PATCH v1] grok unpavedness

From Steve Hosgood steve at tallyho.bc.nu on Wed Dec 9 11:45:51 GMT 2009

Felix Hartmann wrote:
>> I do agree though that OSM's tagging for road surfaces is a bit of a 
>> mess, but it needs an OSM-level cleanup if that's a problem, not at 
>> mkgmap-level.
>> AFAIK there are "surface=???" "smoothness=???" "mtb:scale=???" 
>> "sac_scale=???" "rtc_rate=???" tags in OSM, all of which (sometimes 
>> in combinations) ought to be enough to give mkgmap the clues needed 
>> to set the routeability of a given way. Plus "access=???" and 
>> "<vehicle>=no" of course.
>> Not just that, but those tags already exist. We should be using them.
>> Steve
> You don't seem to understand. 

No - I understand fine, thanks.
I just disagree with the idea that this proposed new tag should be 
> You can use them and the default style should use some of them. 
> However there is no clear borderline of what is paved and what is 
> unpaved, therefore it is best to use a new key. 

Well, a new key is one option, getting the entire OSM community to tidy 
up a bit on the use of existing keys is another option.

IMHO, if use of the existing keys isn't feasable, then any new key 
should be more like "autorouter=avoid" or something. This is not 
mkgmap-specific, it would apply to all the other projects looking to use 
OSM data for in-car GPS navigators, and the browser-driven computer 
navigators too.

But before adding a new key, we should be able to "prove" that no 
combination of the existing keys does it for us.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20091209/4973b01c/attachment.html 

More information about the mkgmap-dev mailing list