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This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 24, 2021.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.
Reporter: Papou [Submitted to the original trac issue database at 2.32pm, Thursday, 1st May 2014]
The rendering of highway=path and highway=track is barely distinguishable.[[BR]]
For example, many huge width highway=residential continue to an extra thin =track and then invisibly change to a =path.[[BR]]
Just like on my National Geographic maps, I suppose that highway=track should be drawn with a distinguishable width something like half that of residential highways.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I don't think path and track are barely distinguishable.
Note that you should still use highway=unclassified that are used for purposes other than agricultural/forest tracks, even if the roads are unsurfaced.
Reporter: Papou
[Submitted to the original trac issue database at 2.32pm, Thursday, 1st May 2014]
The rendering of highway=path and highway=track is barely distinguishable.[[BR]]
For example, many huge width highway=residential continue to an extra thin =track and then invisibly change to a =path.[[BR]]
Just like on my National Geographic maps, I suppose that highway=track should be drawn with a distinguishable width something like half that of residential highways.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: