[patch] Take heed of access restrictions #364
Comments
Author: schuetzm[at]gmx.net The attached patch shows access restrictions for highway=* and amenity=parking in osmarender by hatching over the way or area. The color used indicates the type of restriction:
|
Author: schuetzm[at]gmx.net A sample can be seen [http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.9476&lon=11.58983&zoom=15&layers=0BFT here] (still rendering right now). |
Author: tom[at]acrewoods.net I like it, although the colours could be a little more sublte. Any chance of getting this committed, and ported to the Mapnik stylesheet? |
Author: schuetzm[at]gmx.net I attached a new version that also takes into account access=no (red criss-cross) and uses lighter colors (currently rerendering the above mentioned area with the patch). |
Author: schuetzm[at]gmx.net Would someone like to commit this, or are there problems with the patch? |
Author: bob[at]cakebox.net This latest version looks much better. There are still some glitches with highway areas, but that's a bit of a mess anyway. I think there's still a smart-linecap mismatch with one of the track styles, could somebody try finding the bug? I'll be committing the patch shortly. Sorry for taking so long to give you feedback on the patch. |
Author: tom[at]acrewoods.net Great, glad to see this patch will go in. One gripe though - this was originally filed against the slippy map, and this patch will fix the Osmarender layer but not the Mapnik layer, which is the default view and so the more important to fix. Please do not mark this as closed until both layers reflect access restrictions. |
Author: tom[at]acrewoods.net For what it's worth, I've patched an installation I'm working on to show little stop symbols. It's another layer copying the oneway symbol approach: http://map.oneplanetsutton.org/?zoom=3&lat=51.39445&lon=-0.17174&layers=B0FF and http://map.oneplanetsutton.org/?zoom=4&lat=51.39098&lon=-0.15713&layers=B0FF |
Author: bob[at]cakebox.net Replying to [comment:7 tom[at]acrewoods.net]:
I changed the component because it's not a bug in the slippy map, it's a map stylesheet feature request. I think the cleanest way to go forward with this is to iron out the bugs in the osmarender patch, then change the component to mapnik and let somebody else handle that. Either that or make a separate ticket against mapnik. |
Author: bob[at]cakebox.net This was commited just around the Quickborn client update, in r7963. Tom: I think you should file a separate ticket against mapnik (and refer to this). |
Author: tom[at]acrewoods.net Thanks for the suggestions and for the Osmarender fix. There isn't a mapnik component in this trac installation, which is why I filed it against slippy_map originally. It's obviously not something for Mapnik's own trac. Can you advise on the best component to file it against? |
Reporter: tom[at]acrewoods.net
[Submitted to the original trac issue database at 10.26am, Monday, 25th December 2006]
It'd a bit bad that the map currently shows ways with access restrictions without any indication of those restrictions.
For example, there are private footpaths and roads that would sometimes not even be on an Ordinance Survey or A-Z map because they're "access=private". These should either be removed, greyed out, have symbols over them, or some other way of denoting their restrictions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: