Hi On Sun, 2019-01-06 at 08:50 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
Bernhard Hiller <bhil@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 attributes? Given answers to these questions, it can be done, but again, in some future change Ticker
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev