Mark Burton <markb@ordern.com> writes:
The attached patch allows you to add either unpaved=yes/true/1 or paved=no/false/0 to a way and then it will be ignored for routing purposes when the GPS has been told to avoid unpaved roads.
Not sure if those are the best tags to use - any thoughts?
In the massgis import, there is surface=unpaved and this seems sensible. In general I would say that mkgmap as a 'renderer' should adapt to conventional tagging practice. I am not clueful on using tagwatch, but I would bet there is some paved=no. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
BTW - the unpaved road line type 0x0a has nothing to do with unpavedness, it's just a routable way that gets drawn as a dashed line (default rendering).
Interesting - I had found that and wondered by this was so hard :-) There's a bit of mess in tagging and interestingly similarly in garmin-land. A road's proper label is in theory separate from paved/unpaved - I have seen roads I'd call tertiary or at least unclassified in Finger Lakes that aren't paved. So I wonder if two rules that map unpaved surface (however tagged) ==> set unpaved bit in Table C together with unpaved surface and roadtype is less than secondary -> use 0x0a so the routing restrictions always work, and so the user can see unpaved roads. Perhaps in the glorious future when we have a standard TYP file we can have unpavd versions of the various roads. I suspect there are a lot of places in the world where there are roads that you'd call primary or certainly secondary that are unpaved.