<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
On 09.12.2009 11:27, Steve Hosgood wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4B1F7B95.6070803@tallyho.bc.nu" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
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>
</blockquote>
You don't seem to understand. 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.
You can then use rules like<br>
<br>
highway=* & .... {set mkgmap:unpaved=1} to have the street
recognised as unpaved. Noone will ever put than key into the osm
database. As all of the keys are based on different objectives this is
up to the style-file to put the rules for what is considered paved and
what not.<br>
highway)* & ( mtb:scale>1 | tracktype=grade2 | tracktpye=grade3
| tracktype=grade4 | tracktype=grade5 | smoothness=bad .....) {add
mkgmap:unpaved=1}<br>
<br>
The goal of the mkgmap:.... key is that it DOES NOT exist in OSM
database.<br>
<br>
And the decision which should be avoided or not, should be left to the
style-file instead of being hardcoded somewhere into mkgamp.
</body>
</html>