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
The actual usability of a track depends on the nature of the surface, smoothness, and so on. tag surface, smoothness and tracktype.
These tags are currently rendered in a fashion that make it possible to see it a track will be praticable.
However, an untagged track with only highway=track is rendered with dashes very close one to another, making look more 'ridedable' than tracktype=grade2 for instance, while this is only a question of lack of data.
A solution could be a dot-dash rendering for these tracks without more information, as it is done for traditional cartoOSM.
Finally, the color for tracks is very dark, which makes it more visible than highway=path&bicycle=designated.
Maybe changing the color (to a shade of brown? --edit--may no be a good idea, it is the color of pedestrian path--) could make tracks looks less attractive than actual bike paths?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
highway=track
may be used for bike transitsurface
,smoothness
andtracktype
.highway=track
is rendered with dashes very close one to another, making look more 'ridedable' thantracktype=grade2
for instance, while this is only a question of lack of data.A solution could be a dot-dash rendering for these tracks without more information, as it is done for traditional cartoOSM.
Finally, the color for tracks is very dark, which makes it more visible than
highway=path
&bicycle=designated
.Maybe changing the color (to a shade of brown? --edit--may no be a good idea, it is the color of pedestrian path--) could make tracks looks less attractive than actual bike paths?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: