n Willink <nw@pinns.co.uk> writes:
Creating a default TYP catering for everyone's needs is a no brainer. It would mean standardising type numbers which in my opinion won't be popular and indeed impair current flexibility: Cyclists and walkers rarely agree on what needs to rendered;to the former benches may be clutter,to the latter cycle hire shops a luxury.
I don't follow this, and I wonder if I'm confused. As I see it a TYP defines a way to render a (possibly large) set of feature codes a style maps osm tags to feature codes feature codes don't have much to do with routing; there is other data also mapped by the style file that controls that So if a TYP has a lot of renderings, then there can be different styles using them. An example of this is Charlie's 'mapsource' and 'gps' styles, which use the same TYP, but have webmap-style casings and traditional-top-style lines respectively. Are you saying that if there are 4 fill patterns for forest with different codes, then that's somehow a problem (vs people just choosing which they want)? Is the issue running out of codes, or the TYP getting huge, or ?