<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Mark Burton wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20091208174658.2abccf52@crow" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hello all,
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">congratulations to your success with the unpaved bit.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Thanks Johann.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">For the keyword I would use mkgamp:unpaved, as some others has suggested
too. In my opinion most if not all tags used by mkgmap should start with
this prefix and should be translated in the style file.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I agree. Therefore, I propose that we use:
mkgmap:unpaved to tag ways that are "unpaved"
mkgmap:ferry to tag ways that are "ferries"
Mapping from OSM tags can be done in the style file.
Is everyone happy with that? If so, I will make the change and commit
it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I disapprove.<br>
<br>
The trouble with the "mkgmap:unpaved=???" approach is that it
duplicates existing functionality in OSM. We should strive to get the
existing functionality better specified if it doesn't already do the
job for us. Otherwise, mapping effort will be spent on adding a set of
tags to OSM which only benefit the Garmin routable maps project. What
about the TomTom people? Or the AndNav2 users? They'll want to know
about routeable or unrouteable unpaved roads too.<br>
<br>
<br>
Unrouteable unpaved roads are a real-world fact, not a 'mkgmap' feature.<br>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Not just that, but those tags already exist. We should be using them.<br>
Steve<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>