[mkgmap-dev] [PATCH v1] grok unpavedness

Wed Dec 9 10:27:33 GMT 2009

Mark Burton wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>   
>> congratulations to your success with the unpaved bit.
>>     
>
> Thanks Johann.
>
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> 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.
>
>   

I disapprove.

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.

Unrouteable unpaved roads are a real-world fact, not a 'mkgmap' feature.

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20091209/472ae312/attachment.html 