logo separator

[mkgmap-dev] default style improvements

From Ticker Berkin rwb-mkgmap at jagit.co.uk on Mon Jan 7 10:47:35 GMT 2019


On Sun, 2019-01-06 at 08:50 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Bernhard Hiller <bhil at gmx.de> writes:
> > I often travel on bike in "nowhere land", where hotels and
> > restaurants
> > are rare. So I think it is good to show both PoIs if a hotel
> > contains
> > a restaurant. Of course, it would be more relevant to know how
> > other
> > users of OSM Garmin maps think about this topic (I use my own
> > style,
> > so the changes to the default style are not relevant for me).
> There are two issues; one is display, and the other is search.  I
> think
> ti's pretty important that "show me cafes and restaurants nearby"
> find
> hotel restaurants (that are open to non-guests).  I don't think it's
> quite as important that they both show up.  But when zoomed all the
> way
> in, it would be nice.  Plus, mappers often put the hotel POI on the
> building and a separate restuarant POI where the restaurant is.

If the consensus is to have both 'Food & Drink' and 'Lodging' points,
I'll can do it, preferably in a future change.
There are many other cases like this; it's almost as if the default
behaviour for 'points' processing should be [... continue ] 

> > A different point I'd like to suggest is a new line type for
> > unpaved
> > highways (which are not tracks). Unpaved public highways may be not
> > very common in Europe, but they are rather normal in other areas of
> > the world.
> > The fact that they are rendered like paved highways makes many
> > mappers
> > think that it is useless to add this tag - and the little use of
> > the
> > surface tag in turn makes map makers think that it does not
> > matter... Clouds of dust caused by other vehicles on that road or
> > getting stuck in a muddy quagmire are not great user experiences.
> > Treating them differently for routing purposes is a good step, but
> > that is not such visible to many users.
> Agreed that unpaved public roads should have a different symbol. 
>  (Even
> where I am, in Massachusetts, US, they have a significant existence.)
> (I think the real reason they don't exist in the UK is that it's too
> wet
> and they would always be muddy.  I drove on some roads there that are
> so
> minor that almost certainly would not have been paved in the US.  
>  And
> this UK non-existence of unpaved  real roads has led to some
> distortion
> of their representation in OSM.)

This request is slightly confused by 2 issues:

1/ The mkgmap/garmin attribute mkgmap:unpaved which is used by the
routing option "avoid unpaved" on some (older?) Garmin devices to avoid
unpaved roads.

2/ The line type 0x0a = "Unpaved Road" being used by the default style
for highway=track, highway=unsurfaced and railway=abandoned

Is the existing setting in the default style of mkgmap:unpaved (based
on tags surface, mtb:scale, tracktype, sac_scale) adequate, or are
there other tags/values that need to considered? 

Are you thinking of having another line type? The default style has
used all but 1 of the non-extended road types that show on newer
devices without a typ-file specification; and I was thinking of using
the last one (0x0b) as the Hint portion of a *_link instead of 0x06,
which is also used for highway=minor & highway=unclassified
Which highway types should be changed, eg unclassified, minor,
tertiary, *_link, ... motorway? Should this new road type have the same
[road_class road_speed resolution] attributes as the existing highway
that it is replacing or can it just have a single fixed set of these

Given answers to these questions, it can be done, but again, in some
future change

> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

More information about the mkgmap-dev mailing list