You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 24, 2021. It is now read-only.
Way 104126677 has the access=no tag applied to it because that section of highway isn't open yet (but fully built). Since it's (will be) a primary highway, it's tagged as such. However, you can hardly see the dashes that the "access=no" tag produces on that way (delete the "&way=104126677" from the URL above to see).
I suggest that the "access=no" color be tweaked some so that you can see it easier when it's applied to any "highway=primary" way. It's that or tweak the "highway=primary" color.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Reporter: rickmastfan67
[Submitted to the original trac issue database at 12.53pm, Monday, 14th March 2011]
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.89119&lon=-84.385744&zoom=18&layers=M&way=104126677
Way 104126677 has the access=no tag applied to it because that section of highway isn't open yet (but fully built). Since it's (will be) a primary highway, it's tagged as such. However, you can hardly see the dashes that the "access=no" tag produces on that way (delete the "&way=104126677" from the URL above to see).
I suggest that the "access=no" color be tweaked some so that you can see it easier when it's applied to any "highway=primary" way. It's that or tweak the "highway=primary" color.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: