Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Display trail importance hierarchy #52

Open
quincylvania opened this issue Jul 15, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Display trail importance hierarchy #52

quincylvania opened this issue Jul 15, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
planetiler Upstream issue with Planetiler rendering Issue with how something looks on the map
Milestone

Comments

@quincylvania
Copy link
Contributor

Long, important trails such as the Appalachian Trail form the arteries of the trail network. We should prioritize and emphasize these at low zooms to help orient people. We could consider dropping low-importance trails from low zoom levels to try and reduce tile size and visual clutter.

In OSM, trail hierarchy is often given in the network tag on route relations, such as network=iwn/nwn/rwn/lwn for walking and hiking trails. However, route relation data on ways is not currently consumable by planetiler.

@quincylvania quincylvania added planetiler Upstream issue with Planetiler rendering Issue with how something looks on the map labels Jul 15, 2024
@pyrog
Copy link

pyrog commented Jul 28, 2024

You could also hide path and track with informal=yes at low zoom levels according the Trail Access Project.

@quincylvania
Copy link
Contributor Author

You could also hide path and track with informal=yes at low zoom levels

Maybe… we already render informal=yes as dotted lines, and at the moment we hide no access trails by default.

@quincylvania quincylvania added this to the Priorities milestone Sep 4, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
planetiler Upstream issue with Planetiler rendering Issue with how something looks on the map
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants