Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
On Thursday 20 August 2015, Jc3b3hannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > > According to the github discussion there is an "overwhelming > consensus" [2] on moving from current rainbow colour scheme for roads > to a red-yellow only scheme. Note this comment is mostly based on the early discussion of the matter, in particular in https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/102 and in the early diary entries by Mateusz but also in countless comments made over the time elsewhere concerning the road color scheme. This of course does not necessarily mean that all those supporting a change in general are fine with the scheme that is now developed by Mateusz. In general among those in favour of keeping the current scheme there have been only very few specific suggestions how to address the problems this leads to in the style, in particular the fact that the road network as a whole is not recognizable as such and the color conflicts with other colors in the style. If you think a different styling than what is currently proposed would be better it would be best to show it. Suggesting to use a paler yellow for tertiary or the color scheme of a different style is one thing, actually demonstrating how this looks and addressing issues this creates is another. I know setting up the system for doing and viewing style changes is not trivial but if - as you say - there are so many people that would be badly affected by it there should be someone to demonstrate a viable alternative. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > Should this be a new, alternative style instead? IMHO for every user that likes the new scheme, you will find one that hates it. And vice versa. As someone that grew up with Falck and Michelin maps, it took a long time to understand why someone would come up with such a weird color scheme (the rainbow scheme you refer to). I had read somewhere that it was done because the ugly colours would force people to make their own maps. Only later I understood it was the common colour scheme in the UK. I guess we will never know what's the best way to proceed. Usually people that don't like the change are very vocal, the lovers not so much. And then there are many many people that do not speak out or do not care. FYI, the Britisch community is trying to set up their own tile server to preserve the rainbow colour scheme, at least for the British islands. regards m ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
I'm taking bets on whether this thread will have more replies than the
"abandoned railroads" (100+ and still going strong!) and win the prize
for the Biggest Waste of Time in OSM for 2015.
YES WE CAN('T)
Paweł
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015, at 03:16, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote:
> For those that did not check on Mateusz Konieczny diary entries[1],
> postings to this mailing list and github discussions then the Proposed
> Great Colour Shift might come as a surprise if it is implemented.
>
> According to the github discussion there is an "overwhelming consensus"
> [2] on moving from current rainbow colour scheme for roads to a
> red-yellow only scheme. I am unsure of where this overwhelming consensus
> formed because I never saw it on this mailing list nor on talk-dev nor
> on announcements, I admit to be an infrequent IRC user but I didn't see
> this overwhelming consensus there and so far no one has been able to
> tell me where it formed or where I can find it.
>
> The design goal seems straight forward, to discontinue green and blue
> for roads and move to red and reddish. For this to happen the decision
> was made to shift current primary, secondary and tertiary colours
> "upwards" so primary is now the colour of secondary and secondary the
> colour of tertiary. Leaving tertiary white.
>
> Tertiary instead gets to be wider than residential and unclassified
> roads, but to be able to spot that you need to have it next to them to
> see which is the wider one.
>
> This one simple change of bleaching tertiary however is something I find
> to be a great hindrance to mapping efforts, particularly in rural areas
> where the roads are isolated and panning over the map, wether in iD or
> using default tiles. Currently it is easy to spot tertiary roads snaking
> through valleys and over vast desert plains, they are yellow and the non
> tertiary roads are white. Tertiary is significant there as it denotes
> the roads between the villages and towns that are often unpaved but
> still the most important, even the only, road. Lesser white colours
> imply the roads not being between larger settlements although they could
> lead to hamlets. The guidelines for mapping in Africa state thus.
>
> Removing the colour from tertiary makes all mapping that much harder to
> verify and quality check. Currently it is easy to see if a tertiary road
> is broken with a white unclassified bridge, not so in the proposed Great
> Colour Shift.
>
> Mateusz has been forthcoming with all changes and done sterling work in
> displaying different areas and how they will look. But he acknowledges
> that this change is not beneficial everywhere on the map and now has a
> disclaimer:
>
> "Among potential problems are that it is now harder to recognise road
> type of given road, especially in situation where there is no
> possibility to compare it with other road types.
> Such significant change will be confusing for current users of this
> style.
> UK color coding of roads is well known for many people, for them a new
> style - even assuming that it would be intuitive for them - will be less
> useful.)"
>
>
> The question really arises if this change is beneficial or not for the
> project. Many hours have gone into it and doing CartoCSS on all these
> zoom levels is not trivial. But this is a major shift on the front page
> of our website, a blow to those who use the default tiles through uMap
> or similarly and depend on the UK rainbow road style and makes life
> harder for mappers to visually confirm the type of road.
>
> Should this be a new, alternative style instead?
>
>
> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35586
> [2]
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1736#issuecomment-130592532
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
That discussion is only a waste of time because people hope that a
consensus will magically appear. The subject of the discussion is
absolutely something which deserves air-time. I am not talking about the
specific case of abandoned railways, but about who has the right to
decide what data has no place in OSM and order its deletion.
What was that famous line in Animal Farm again?
--colin
On 2015-08-20 10:53, Paweł Paprota wrote:
> I'm taking bets on whether this thread will have more replies than the
> "abandoned railroads" (100+ and still going strong!) and win the prize
> for the Biggest Waste of Time in OSM for 2015.
>
> YES WE CAN('T)
>
> Paweł
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015, at 03:16, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote:
>
>> For those that did not check on Mateusz Konieczny diary entries[1 [1]],
>> postings to this mailing list and github discussions then the Proposed
>> Great Colour Shift might come as a surprise if it is implemented.
>>
>> According to the github discussion there is an "overwhelming consensus"
>> [2] on moving from current rainbow colour scheme for roads to a
>> red-yellow only scheme. I am unsure of where this overwhelming consensus
>> formed because I never saw it on this mailing list nor on talk-dev nor
>> on announcements, I admit to be an infrequent IRC user but I didn't see
>> this overwhelming consensus there and so far no one has been able to
>> tell me where it formed or where I can find it.
>>
>> The design goal seems straight forward, to discontinue green and blue
>> for roads and move to red and reddish. For this to happen the decision
>> was made to shift current primary, secondary and tertiary colours
>> "upwards" so primary is now the colour of secondary and secondary the
>> colour of tertiary. Leaving tertiary white.
>>
>> Tertiary instead gets to be wider than residential and unclassified
>> roads, but to be able to spot that you need to have it next to them to
>> see which is the wider one.
>>
>> This one simple change of bleaching tertiary however is something I find
>> to be a great hindrance to mapping efforts, particularly in rural areas
>> where the roads are isolated and panning over the map, wether in iD or
>> using default tiles. Currently it is easy to spot tertiary roads snaking
>> through valleys and over vast desert plains, they are yellow and the non
>> tertiary roads are white. Tertiary is significant there as it denotes
>> the roads between the villages and towns that are often unpaved but
>> still the most important, even the only, road. Lesser white colours
>> imply the roads not being between larger settlements although they could
>> lead to hamlets. The guidelines for mapping in Africa state thus.
>>
>> Removing the colour from tertiary makes all mapping that much harder to
>> verify and quality check. Currently it is easy to see if a tertiary road
>> is broken with a white unclassified bridge, not so in the proposed Great
>> Colour Shift.
>>
>> Mateusz has been forthcoming with all changes and done sterling work in
>> displaying different areas and how they will look. But he acknowledges
>> that this change is not beneficial everywhere on the map and now has a
>> disclaimer:
>>
>> "Among potential problems are that it is now harder to recognise road
>> type of given road, especially in situation where there is no
>> possibility to compare it with other road types.
>> Such significant change will be confusing for current users of this
>> style.
>> UK color coding of roads is well known for many people, for them a new
>> style - even assuming that it would be intuitive for them - will be less
>> useful.)"
>>
>> The question really arises if this change is beneficial or not for the
>> project. Many hours have gone into it and doing CartoCSS on all these
>> zoom levels is not trivial. But this is a major shift on the front page
>> of our website, a blow to those who use the default tiles through uMap
>> or similarly and depend on the UK rainbow road style and makes life
>> harder for mappers to visually confirm the type of road.
>>
>> Should this be a new, alternative style instead?
>>
>> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35586
>> [2]
>> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1736#issuecomment-130592532
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Links:
--
[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35586
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
What you are proposing is basically design by committee
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee) which is rampant
everywhere in OSM and kills innovation. Everyone wants to pile on their
own cause - be it privacy (see the latest pull request on Github
regarding Gravatar for another viable contender for the Waste of Time
prize) or some weird anarchy/freedom/whatever world views.
At the same time there's a guy (Mateusz) who took on the task of making
the default style not suck - so what do people here do? Of course, let's
discuss this to death until everyone agrees. But then you may find that
no one wants to work with you on this anymore.
In Poland we have this often-used saying with regards to the political
or social situation (yeah, we Poles like to complain a lot!) - it sucks
but at least it's stable!
Paweł
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015, at 11:39, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>
> That discussion is only a waste of time because people hope that a consensus
> will magically appear. The subject of the discussion is absolutely something
> which deserves air-time. I am not talking about the specific case of
> abandoned railways, but about who has the right to decide what data has no
> place in OSM and order its deletion.
> What was that famous line in Animal Farm again?
> --colin
> On 2015-08-20 10:53, Paweł Paprota wrote:
>> I'm taking bets on whether this thread will have more replies than the
>> "abandoned railroads" (100+ and still going strong!) and win the prize
>> for the Biggest Waste of Time in OSM for 2015.
>>
>> YES WE CAN('T)
>>
>> Paweł
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015, at 03:16, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote:
>>> For those that did not check on Mateusz Konieczny diary
>>> entries[1[http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35586]],
>>>
>>> postings to this mailing list and github discussions then the Proposed
>>> Great Colour Shift might come as a surprise if it is implemented.
>>>
>>> According to the github discussion there is an "overwhelming consensus"
>>> [2] on moving from current rainbow colour scheme for roads to a
>>> red-yellow only scheme. I am unsure of where this overwhelming consensus
>>> formed because I never saw it on this mailing list nor on talk-dev nor
>>> on announcements, I admit to be an infrequent IRC user but I didn't see
>>> this overwhelming consensus there and so far no one has been able to
>>> tell me where it formed or where I can find it.
>>>
>>> The design goal seems straight forward, to discontinue green and blue
>>> for roads and move to red and reddish. For this to happen the decision
>>> was made to shift current primary, secondary and tertiary colours
>>> "upwards" so primary is now the colour of secondary and secondary the
>>> colour of tertiary. Leaving tertiary white.
>>>
>>> Tertiary instead gets to be wider than residential and unclassified
>>> roads, but to be able to spot that you need to have it next to them to
>>> see which is the wider one.
>>>
>>> This one simple change of bleaching tertiary however is something I find
>>> to be a great hindrance to mapping efforts, particularly in rural areas
>>> where the roads are isolated and panning over the map, wether in iD or
>>> using default tiles. Currently it is easy to spot tertiary roads snaking
>>> through valleys and over vast desert plains, they are yellow and the non
>>> tertiary roads are white. Tertiary is significant there as it denotes
>>> the roads between the villages and towns that are often unpaved but
>>> still the most important, even the only, road. Lesser white colours
>>> imply the roads not being between larger settlements although they could
>>> lead to hamlets. The guidelines for mapping in Africa state thus.
>>>
>>> Removing the colour from tertiary makes all mapping that much harder to
>>> verify and quality check. Currently it is easy to see if a tertiary road
>>> is broken with a white unclassified bridge, not so in the proposed Great
>>> Colour Shift.
>>>
>>> Mateusz has been forthcoming with all changes and done sterling work in
>>> displaying different areas and how they will look. But he acknowledges
>>> that this change is not beneficial everywhere on the map and now has a
>>> disclaimer:
>>>
>>> "Among potential problems are that it is now harder to recognise road
>>> type of given road, especially in situation where there is no
>>> possibility to compare it with other road types.
>>> Such significant change will be confusing for current users of this
>>> style.
>>> UK color coding of roads is well known for many people, for them a new
>>> style - even assuming that it would be intuitive for them - will be less
>>> useful.)"
>>>
>>>
>>> The question really arises if this change is beneficial or not for the
>>> project. Many hours have gone into it and doing CartoCSS on all these
>>> zoom levels is not trivial. But this is a major shift on the front p
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
I must admit I never really liked the scheme where motorways get the colour
of water... I also grew up with orange/yellow motorways on the map.
But I (try to) complain as little as possible. So I'm glad people are
trying to come up with a 'more international' way of rendering the map. If
that's even possible.
On the other hand, I don't like that the difference between tertiary and
unclassified/residential disappears almost completely.
I don't have the time and energy to set up a rendering chain, so maybe I
better shut up...
Polyglot
2015-08-20 11:59 GMT+02:00 Paweł Paprota :
> What you are proposing is basically design by committee
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee) which is rampant
> everywhere in OSM and kills innovation. Everyone wants to pile on their
> own cause - be it privacy (see the latest pull request on Github
> regarding Gravatar for another viable contender for the Waste of Time
> prize) or some weird anarchy/freedom/whatever world views.
>
> At the same time there's a guy (Mateusz) who took on the task of making
> the default style not suck - so what do people here do? Of course, let's
> discuss this to death until everyone agrees. But then you may find that
> no one wants to work with you on this anymore.
>
> In Poland we have this often-used saying with regards to the political
> or social situation (yeah, we Poles like to complain a lot!) - it sucks
> but at least it's stable!
>
> Paweł
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015, at 11:39, Colin Smale wrote:
> >
>
>
> >
> > That discussion is only a waste of time because people hope that a
> consensus will magically appear. The subject of the discussion is
> absolutely something which deserves air-time. I am not talking about the
> specific case of abandoned railways, but about who has the right to decide
> what data has no place in OSM and order its deletion.
>
>
> > What was that famous line in Animal Farm again?
>
>
> > --colin
>
>
> > On 2015-08-20 10:53, Paweł Paprota wrote:
>
>
> >> I'm taking bets on whether this thread will have more replies than the
> >> "abandoned railroads" (100+ and still going strong!) and win the prize
> >> for the Biggest Waste of Time in OSM for 2015.
> >>
> >> YES WE CAN('T)
> >>
> >> Paweł
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015, at 03:16, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote:
> >>> For those that did not check on Mateusz Konieczny diary entries[1[
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35586]],
> >>> postings to this mailing list and github discussions then the Proposed
> >>> Great Colour Shift might come as a surprise if it is implemented.
> >>>
> >>> According to the github discussion there is an "overwhelming
> consensus"
> >>> [2] on moving from current rainbow colour scheme for roads to a
> >>> red-yellow only scheme. I am unsure of where this overwhelming
> consensus
> >>> formed because I never saw it on this mailing list nor on talk-dev nor
> >>> on announcements, I admit to be an infrequent IRC user but I didn't
> see
> >>> this overwhelming consensus there and so far no one has been able to
> >>> tell me where it formed or where I can find it.
> >>>
> >>> The design goal seems straight forward, to discontinue green and blue
> >>> for roads and move to red and reddish. For this to happen the decision
> >>> was made to shift current primary, secondary and tertiary colours
> >>> "upwards" so primary is now the colour of secondary and secondary the
> >>> colour of tertiary. Leaving tertiary white.
> >>>
> >>> Tertiary instead gets to be wider than residential and unclassified
> >>> roads, but to be able to spot that you need to have it next to them to
> >>> see which is the wider one.
> >>>
> >>> This one simple change of bleaching tertiary however is something I
> find
> >>> to be a great hindrance to mapping efforts, particularly in rural
> areas
> >>> where the roads are isolated and panning over the map, wether in iD or
> >>> using default tiles. Currently it is easy to spot tertiary roads
> snaking
> >>> through valleys and over vast desert plains, they are yellow and the
> non
> >>> tertiary roads are white. Tertiary is significant there as it denotes
> >>> the roads between the villages and towns that are often unpaved but
> >>> still the most important, even the only, road. Lesser white colours
> >>> imply the roads not being between larger settlements although they
> could
> >>> lead to hamlets. The guidelines for mapping in Africa state thus.
> >>>
> >>> Removing the colour from tertiary makes all mapping that much harder
> to
> >>> verify and quality check. Currently it is easy to see if a tertiary
> road
> >>> is broken with a white unclassified bridge, not so in the proposed
> Great
> >>> Colour Shift.
> >>>
> >>> Mateusz has been forthcoming with all changes and done sterling work
> in
> >>> displaying different areas and how they will look. But he acknowledges
> >>> that this change is not beneficial everywhere on the map and now h
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
I'm not proposing anything. Merely observing.
I am not the only one confused about which definition of "overwhelming
consensus" was used...
--colin
On 2015-08-20 11:59, Paweł Paprota wrote:
> What you are proposing is basically design by committee
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee) which is rampant
> everywhere in OSM and kills innovation. Everyone wants to pile on their
> own cause - be it privacy (see the latest pull request on Github
> regarding Gravatar for another viable contender for the Waste of Time
> prize) or some weird anarchy/freedom/whatever world views.
>
> At the same time there's a guy (Mateusz) who took on the task of making
> the default style not suck - so what do people here do? Of course, let's
> discuss this to death until everyone agrees. But then you may find that
> no one wants to work with you on this anymore.
>
> In Poland we have this often-used saying with regards to the political
> or social situation (yeah, we Poles like to complain a lot!) - it sucks
> but at least it's stable!
>
> Paweł
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015, at 11:39, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> That discussion is only a waste of time because people hope that a consensus
>> will magically appear. The subject of the discussion is absolutely something
>> which deserves air-time. I am not talking about the specific case of
>> abandoned railways, but about who has the right to decide what data has no
>> place in OSM and order its deletion.
>
>> What was that famous line in Animal Farm again?
>
>> --colin
>
>> On 2015-08-20 10:53, Paweł Paprota wrote:
>
> I'm taking bets on whether this thread will have more replies than the
> "abandoned railroads" (100+ and still going strong!) and win the prize
> for the Biggest Waste of Time in OSM for 2015.
>
> YES WE CAN('T)
>
> Paweł
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015, at 03:16, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: For those that
> did not check on Mateusz Konieczny diary
> entries[1[http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35586]],
>
> postings to this mailing list and github discussions then the Proposed
> Great Colour Shift might come as a surprise if it is implemented.
>
> According to the github discussion there is an "overwhelming consensus"
> [2] on moving from current rainbow colour scheme for roads to a
> red-yellow only scheme. I am unsure of where this overwhelming consensus
> formed because I never saw it on this mailing list nor on talk-dev nor
> on announcements, I admit to be an infrequent IRC user but I didn't see
> this overwhelming consensus there and so far no one has been able to
> tell me where it formed or where I can find it.
>
> The design goal seems straight forward, to discontinue green and blue
> for roads and move to red and reddish. For this to happen the decision
> was made to shift current primary, secondary and tertiary colours
> "upwards" so primary is now the colour of secondary and secondary the
> colour of tertiary. Leaving tertiary white.
>
> Tertiary instead gets to be wider than residential and unclassified
> roads, but to be able to spot that you need to have it next to them to
> see which is the wider one.
>
> This one simple change of bleaching tertiary however is something I find
> to be a great hindrance to mapping efforts, particularly in rural areas
> where the roads are isolated and panning over the map, wether in iD or
> using default tiles. Currently it is easy to spot tertiary roads snaking
> through valleys and over vast desert plains, they are yellow and the non
> tertiary roads are white. Tertiary is significant there as it denotes
> the roads between the villages and towns that are often unpaved but
> still the most important, even the only, road. Lesser white colours
> imply the roads not being between larger settlements although they could
> lead to hamlets. The guidelines for mapping in Africa state thus.
>
> Removing the colour from tertiary makes all mapping that much harder to
> verify and quality check. Currently it is easy to see if a tertiary road
> is broken with a white unclassified bridge, not so in the proposed Great
> Colour Shift.
>
> Mateusz has been forthcoming with all changes and done sterling work in
> displaying different areas and how they will look. But he acknowledges
> that this change is not beneficial everywhere on the map and now has a
> disclaimer:
>
> "Among potential problems are that it is now harder to recognise road
> type of given road, especially in situation where there is no
> possibility to compare it with other road types.
> Such significant change will be confusing for current users of this
> style.
> UK color coding of roads is well known for many people, for them a new
> style - even assuming that it would be intuitive for them - will be less
> useful.)"
>
> The question really arises if this change is beneficial or not for the
> project. Many hours have gone into it and doing CartoCSS on all these
>
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
On 20/08/2015 02:16, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: According to the github discussion there is an "overwhelming consensus" [2] on moving from current rainbow colour scheme for roads to a red-yellow only scheme. I don't think you'll ever get an "overwhelming consensus" from such a large "committee". :) I rendered z0-z11 locally to see what it looks like and was pleasantly surprised - it's much less "orange" than some of the previous iterations that there have been discussions and blog posts about, and better for it. I'm not quite sure that z7 is quite there (see the difference at http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35586#comment31695 ), and obviously any change takes getting used to, but it's not markedly worse than what went before and does resolve the "invisible trunk road" problem, which really is a problem. Cheers, Andy (SomeoneElse) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
On 20/08/2015, Russ Nelson wrote: > moltonel 3x Combo writes: > > The demolished: prefix only makes sense when there is something left > > of the former feature, typically rubble (useful for example to alert > > boattripers of the hazard). When there is nothing left in reality, > > there should be nothing left in OSM. > > Question: should we tag the aqueduct underneath Sunrise Highway > between Aqueduct Raceway and Freeport, NY? I'm not at all familliar with that area, please provide some links. > > Deleting an object is hardly different from editing it as far as > > osm history is concerned. > > Except that deletion excises it from the database that you see when > make an API call. So does editing. When you change the geometry or tags of an object, the old versions are not downloaded/displayed by you editor unless you take special action. I know that outside of Potlach1 that "special action" is a bit more complicated, but that is just an API issue that will hopefully get fixed someday. > In the case of dismantled railways, that is not > accurate. There *is* a dismantled railway there, and you can tell > because the railway was at point A and at point B, and you can still > see it there, and so you should expect to see it in-between. The argument (which is not making any progress so this might be my last comment on it) is between *is* and *was*, and where to draw the line. If there *is* an abandoned railway it can be mapped. If there *was* a railway it cannot be mapped. "abandoned" isn't a synonym of "was". See for example http://osm.org/go/esz3FWUuB- (toggle satellite imagery). There *is* an abandoned railway south of the river, there *was* a railway north of it. The fact that you can infer that the railway was indeed there because it's clearly visible again at http://osm.org/go/esz18LcmF- (and visible all the way in the GSGS 3906 imagery) doesn't matter. We've discussed a few criterias to distinguish between *is* and *was* on this thread, but you've dismissed even the most basic "A building has not been constructed at that location" one. On the subject of is/was criterias, I'd like to weight against the less basic "railway grade slope" one. Firstly because railways usually followed existing flat grades instead of following them, secondly because in other cases the cuttings and embankments should be mapped for themselves rather than implied by a railway=abandoned. There might be some cases where that argument still makes sense (montainside railways come to mind), but it needs to be evaluated case by case IMHO. > I understand that most people don't give a crap about map feature X, > Y, and Z. I get it, really I do. I look at things in OSM myself and > wonder "why the hell did you map that?? Who cares??" And when it comes > to railways, there's a lot of people who don't give a crap. Fine. Go > ahead. Don't care. But I do. So don't delete the things that I (and > other railfans) have added. For the last time, this isn't about esoteric mapping topics (abandoned railways is actually quite popular in OSM), but about reconising then something just doesn't exist anymore and (in another part of this thread) about wether mapping the past is acceptable in OSM at all. > From whence comes this impulse to destroy other people's work? Cuz it > seems pretty anti-community, anti-mapper, and anti-OSM. Quality assurance. We all want the map to be as correct as possible, and that sometimes require deleting data. The only anti-* case is when the decision to modify/delete is controversial but not discussed. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
On 20/08/2015, Russ Nelson wrote: > moltonel 3x Combo writes: > > But it's equally annoying and tiring to repeatedly encounter the > > ludicrous kind of railway=abandoned, > > Then tag it as railway=dismantled. You won't find me defending > incorrect tagging of anything. If 'dismantled' is meant to be used for cases like going thru buildings in a housing estate then no, this data just doesn't belong in OSM. > moltonel 3x Combo writes: > > To me the distinguishing criteria between disused and abandoned is > > wether the rails are still present or not. > > Indeed. disused means the rails are still there. Abandoned means that > the rails are gone. Dismantled (or some people use razed) is when a > section of the railbad cannot be seen. Railways that were never there, > placed by mistake, should be deleted. The wiki only describes abandoned and disused. Some people have mentioned cases where the rails are still there but trees are growing in the middle so it really should be 'abandoned' and/or there should be a value between 'abandoned' and 'disused'. From what you said earlyer, maybe 'dismantled' is the new 'abandoned' and 'abandoned' sits somewhere between 'dismantled' and 'disused' ? Maybe you could give the wiki some TLC. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
On 20/08/2015, Russ Nelson wrote: > moltonel writes: > When they show up, we can have a discussion. In the meantime, I'm > here, and many other mappers map abandoned and dismantled railways, > and we would like to NOT HAVE YOU FRICK WITH OUR STUFF. Please don't shout and curse, it just kills the debate. Your defense of railway=* mapped thru buildings of a housing estate is something that I (and AFAICT most of the community) cannot agree with, so that topic has reached a dead-end and I'll stop discussing it. Hopefully someday we'll get a proper way to map in the 4th dimention in OSM (hint: OHM is not good enough yet). In the meantime, if I happen to be mapping somewhere and see an abandoned/dismantled railway going thru houses like in your "perfect example of how a railway should be mapped", I'll delete it. Regards. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:12 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: > Frederik Ramm writes: > The trouble is that I'm being > threatened with having my contributions deleted! > > DELETED! > > Why incentive do I have to correctly tag, when people are saying "Go > ahead, I'm just going to delete it anyway and I'm going to encourage > other people to do the same thing." Russ, seriously. Many people already told you that if it is removed physically, then we remove it in OSM as well. Even if you use a tag "dismantled", the point isn't changing : we don't keep removed features in OSM. We map the present (and basically, I'm also if favour to delete the future, like the "planned" stuff when it's not 100% sure). There is a large consensus on that in the community. Why are you insisting ? If you like, check the OHM project which is dedicated for historical maps. I got some examples from the net: [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dunstable,_Dismantled_railway_and_National_Cycle_Network_Route_6_-_geograph.org.uk_-_146322.jpg where is the railway here ? were are the rails ? why should we keep any mention about "rails" when it's a cycleway now ? map what we see, the path or track and the cuttings/embankments. [2] http://ukbeach.guide/photos/uk-photos.php?photo=15295 [3] http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2496379 "disused" is fine here. [4] https://outoftheloopdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/p6090099.jpg Who knows that this track was a railway from 1881 to 1961 ? why should we keep any "railway" tag here ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
On 19/08/2015, Lester Caine wrote: > 98% of the history that we are looking to manage properly is currently > existing in OSM. All that is needed is to add start dates to the bulk of > the existing data. What do you do when a road gets upgraded, widened, straightened, renamed, or some combination thereof at various points in time ? start/end_date tags are way too crude, they can't capture any evolution (as opposed to construction/demolition) of the real world, making their use very limited. > The SMALL amount of material that > is a result of new development work invariably maps into currently > existing objects. That's just not true, by definition new developments are new objects (and often a lot of old objects relegated to the past). And the amount of evolution in the real world is by no mean small. > Insisting that this data is only available for > rendering purposes in a second database is just wrong, and even worse, > the 98% of the supporting data exists in OSM so why maintain a second > copy of it. I would actually love to be able to map the past in OSM. But if all you have to offer me is start/end tags and some renderer/editor workarounds, I'll say no thanks. To me OHM's value is not so much in its data as in being a sandbox to experiment with tooling to map the past, which can eventually be merged back into OSM. I suppose the OSM data model itself has to be modified to support a nonlinear history, but this is tricky. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
On 20/08/15 14:06, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 19/08/2015, Lester Caine wrote: >> 98% of the history that we are looking to manage properly is currently >> existing in OSM. All that is needed is to add start dates to the bulk of >> the existing data. > > What do you do when a road gets upgraded, widened, straightened, > renamed, or some combination thereof at various points in time ? > start/end_date tags are way too crude, they can't capture any > evolution (as opposed to construction/demolition) of the real world, > making their use very limited. The same applies today to mapping the fine detail of what you describe. Many of the footpaths around here have been improved and expanded but there is currently no easy way to map the current state ... but simply adding a date when the footpath first appeared is better than nothing, and that has nothing to do with OHM, it is simply adding current data to the current map. >> The SMALL amount of material that >> is a result of new development work invariably maps into currently >> existing objects. > > That's just not true, by definition new developments are new objects > (and often a lot of old objects relegated to the past). And the amount > of evolution in the real world is by no mean small. Some parts of the world are demolishing large areas of 'history' but on the whole, the increase in volume of currently valid data considerably outstrips the small amount of historic data it replaces. >> Insisting that this data is only available for >> rendering purposes in a second database is just wrong, and even worse, >> the 98% of the supporting data exists in OSM so why maintain a second >> copy of it. > > I would actually love to be able to map the past in OSM. But if all > you have to offer me is start/end tags and some renderer/editor > workarounds, I'll say no thanks. Totally agree! The current problem *I* have is that the OHM is a complete waste of space since the material I have a growing amount of is the start_date for the CURRENT objects on OSM. All that I am allowed to add is that start and end date tag, but YES there is room to improve the model ... but it's not just improving management of object evolution, it's adding EXISTING fine detail to current objects. > To me OHM's value is not so much in its data as in being a sandbox to > experiment with tooling to map the past, which can eventually be > merged back into OSM. I suppose the OSM data model itself has to be > modified to support a nonlinear history, but this is tricky. There is no point my even looking at OHM at the present. Unless I can import all of the existing data from OSM since that is what I want to work on. Along with managing the evolution of the road system in the UK, where very few roads get 'abandoned', while the railway system has not survived quite as well. Just up the road from here one of the military depots is now a new housing development. We have the existing railway structure and can track it's destruction as the new development progresses, and the historic view is already well mapped so there is no work needed to record that ... ONLY tag it's end_date as sections get removed, leaving the elements that are to be retained since restoration of the line down to Broadway is still a potential target. The Broadway bypass was built with a railway bridge 'capable of handling electrification' despite the fact that there is no track bed currently. The route still forms part of the 'protected' network which may be required in the future. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
On 20/08/15 02:16, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > The question really arises if this change is beneficial or not for the > project. Many hours have gone into it and doing CartoCSS on all these > zoom levels is not trivial. But this is a major shift on the front page > of our website, a blow to those who use the default tiles through uMap > or similarly and depend on the UK rainbow road style and makes life > harder for mappers to visually confirm the type of road. > > Should this be a new, alternative style instead? That a UK version will appear is a simple fact. Ideally I would like anybody looking up OSM in the UK to be directed to that version. That may be a little more difficult to achieve, but removes the WTF provided by a more international solution? The problem of cause is that one has to switch to another server to get areas outside the UK unless we can provided a complete duplicate of the existing service ... retaining the current style base. For me, the new style is a pointless exercise since I NEED to retain a UK view of the data, and I am sure other countries would also prefer to retain their own road colour preferences so trying to provide an international style has a limited 'market'? If anything it simply drives us to provided more local styled services? I'm not going to object to the current plans, simply because I don't have to live with it, but I don't think that it IS the right development path for many reasons. Just what is the convention in the US, Russia or China? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
> For me, the new style is a pointless exercise since I NEED to retain a > UK view of the data, and I am sure other countries would also prefer to > retain their own road colour preferences so trying to provide an > international style has a limited 'market'? If anything it simply drives > us to provided more local styled services? Isn't it possible to have separate UK rendering on the same map, like on the Mapquest layer? If such a framework is created it could even open up other renderings for different countries. Thing is that UK won't ever be happy with another colour scheme and the rest of the world won't ever be happy with a UK scheme. Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
On 20/08/2015 16:25, Ben Laenen wrote: Thing is that UK won't ever be happy with another colour scheme and the rest of the world won't ever be happy with a UK scheme. ... and then in the UK we can start arguing about and "English" style vs a "Scottish" one and then a "Yorkshire" one vs "Surrey" :) Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:09:35AM +0200, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson > wrote: > > > Should this be a new, alternative style instead? > > > IMHO for every user that likes the new scheme, you will find one that hates > it. And vice versa. For the fact that there are a lot of people who havent even heard about this change i doubt the overwhelming consensus aswell. Yes - OSMs color scheme may at first be odd but we now have it for a couple of years and it served us well and i dont see the point in eliminating additional information from the map. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today! signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 02:59:34PM +0200, Pieren wrote: > I got some examples from the net: > > [1] > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dunstable,_Dismantled_railway_and_National_Cycle_Network_Route_6_-_geograph.org.uk_-_146322.jpg > > where is the railway here ? were are the rails ? why should we keep > any mention about "rails" when it's a cycleway now ? map what we see, > the path or track and the cuttings/embankments. don't care where the rails are but knowing that it used to be a railway perfectly explains the the characteristic cutting. Mapping the cutting itself is not quite as good. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
On Thursday 20 August 2015, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 20/08/2015 02:16, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > > According to the github discussion there is an "overwhelming > > consensus" [2] on moving from current rainbow colour scheme for > > roads to a red-yellow only scheme. > > I don't think you'll ever get an "overwhelming consensus" from such a > large "committee". :) Yes, i now see that "overwhelming consensus" is a bad choice of words here - either there is consensus or there is not, it can not be overwhelming. And it only makes sense to speak of consensus with a clearly defined group of people which does not exist here. So i should have better said among those participating in discussions on the matter on several occasions there was a large majority in support for such a change. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
As someone affected I wish to dissent therefore you do not have consensus not every one consents. Cheerio John On 20 August 2015 at 12:26, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Thursday 20 August 2015, Andy Townsend wrote: > > On 20/08/2015 02:16, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > > > According to the github discussion there is an "overwhelming > > > consensus" [2] on moving from current rainbow colour scheme for > > > roads to a red-yellow only scheme. > > > > I don't think you'll ever get an "overwhelming consensus" from such a > > large "committee". :) > > Yes, i now see that "overwhelming consensus" is a bad choice of words > here - either there is consensus or there is not, it can not be > overwhelming. And it only makes sense to speak of consensus with a > clearly defined group of people which does not exist here. > > So i should have better said among those participating in discussions on > the matter on several occasions there was a large majority in support > for such a change. > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Lester Caine wrote: > On 20/08/15 02:16, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > > The question really arises if this change is beneficial or not for the > > project. Many hours have gone into it and doing CartoCSS on all these > > zoom levels is not trivial. But this is a major shift on the front page > > of our website, a blow to those who use the default tiles through uMap > > or similarly and depend on the UK rainbow road style and makes life > > harder for mappers to visually confirm the type of road. > > > > Should this be a new, alternative style instead? > > That a UK version will appear is a simple fact. Ideally I would like > anybody looking up OSM in the UK to be directed to that version. That > may be a little more difficult to achieve, but removes the WTF provided > by a more international solution? The problem of cause is that one has > to switch to another server to get areas outside the UK unless we can > provided a complete duplicate of the existing service ... retaining the > current style base. > > For me, the new style is a pointless exercise since I NEED to retain a > UK view of the data, and I am sure other countries would also prefer to > retain their own road colour preferences so trying to provide an > international style has a limited 'market'? If anything it simply drives > us to provided more local styled services? > I don't have a problem with this, the (from a USian perspective) odd style of the rather UK-centric style of the standard and cyclemap styles didn't help with the learning curve. > I'm not going to object to the current plans, simply because I don't > have to live with it, but I don't think that it IS the right development > path for many reasons. Just what is the convention in the US, Russia or > China? > Along these lines, the standard style as it isn't too far off from what Americans expect out of a motorist-oriented roadmap (though mapgeeks might see it as a bit "German" by comparison to our maps). Surface streets tend to be all the same color (usually purple or red) with the thickness of the lines tending to be rather thin, increasing in thickness up to primary or sometimes trunk, with motorways tending to be purple with red borders. Toll roads are *always* green, there's *never* ways that are green that are not toll. This style of rendering is almost certainly heavily influenced by Rand McNally, given it's ubiquity for casual use maps, which traditionally has favored as described above in a somewhat simplified, stylized form (such as rather than each ramp mapped out in detail, an entire, possibly almost absurdly complex junction, is simplified to a single white square representing a motorway junction). Rand McNally was, for quite a long time, the official cartography provider for the American Automobile Association, which probably helped propel this style as an expectation. Thomas Guide (still usually preferred by professional local drivers even when equipped with a GPS in the US, as a single metro gets published as a lay-flat atlas hundreds or thousands of pages long with detailed annotation, sometimes down to building suite level, at a scale roughly equal to z20 and handy for that "last thousand feet" navigation) tends to use the same form, but rather than simplifying junctions, often goes the map porn route by mapping out everything to scale without simplification. Metro Regional Government (the regional government on the Oregon side of the Portland metropolitian area) probably had the most influence on what people expect out of a bicycle map in the US, with the above style for the Thomas Guide being refitted to the same form factor, layout and scale as one would expect from a Rand McNally metro level map (largely for sake of being able to actually stow it conveniently on a bicycle) printed on waterproof, ripstop paper similar to what you'd find on a land surveyor's notebook, though anything that falls outside of the cycleway network is "greyed out" like an unavailable menu item in a WIMP-style GUI. Difficult intersections and junctions get a red circle around them, dedicated cycleways are purple, surface streets with bike lanes tend to be a thin blue line, bicycle boulevards a thick blue line. Streets in the network that have no bicycle facilities are green if two or all three of these are true: Wide, low motorist speed, low motorist volume (mostly residential side streets that aren't bike boulevards). Yellow if two of the following are true: High motorist speed, high motorist volume, or no escape space (major arterial streets with wide outside lanes and freeways tend to make this). Red qualifies pretty much any situation yellow would if all three yellow conditions are true or two of the yellow conditions but other hazards are present (the kind of thing that only folks like Wolfpack Hustle or someone going for full completion of every Strava KOM in the region are willing to ride, yet somehow get included in the cyc
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
I'm happy to support a shades of red/yellow road system for the default map. The "UK" colours only really work at small scale with heavy casing (with landuse eg forests muted). The green for trunk roads used for OS 1:50,000 is only recent, much darker than the green used for OSM, and a cartographical abomination (in my view), being much too dominant. Until a few years ago, it was only motorways that were different. The colours at 1:25,000 have always been slightly different again. As ever, if you want something done your own particular way, do it yourself. Rendering isn't *that* difficult. The default map needs to work at all zooms, and all* latitudes. *excluding the tricky bits around the poles, obviously ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
Hi, On 08/20/2015 03:16 AM, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > Removing the colour from tertiary makes all mapping that much harder to > verify and quality check. Currently it is easy to see if a tertiary road > is broken with a white unclassified bridge, not so in the proposed Great > Colour Shift. ... > Should this be a new, alternative style instead? Disadvantages of offering and maintaining 2 different styles: 1. uses more disk space on tile servers 2. uses more time to render tiles (i.e. slower updates, or more hardware required) 3. harder to keep styles current when making improvements Your use case of "easily recognizable tertiary road in sparsely populated regions" is valid, but perhaps it is "niche" enough to accept that it need to be served by the main map style. I'm in favour of the change simply because it is a change. As a project, we must take great care not to ossify. Humans are inherently change averse; most people prefer "the same as yesterday" most of the time. If we allow the project to become too averse to change then we'll never see progress. (What, API 0.7 you say? Just when I had 0.6 hardcoded in my 37 applications, no way!) This is not change for change's sake (although if it were my decision, I'd even be tempted to do that just to keep us alert) - this is a well thought out suggestion and I don't see why we shouldn't, after all these years, do something else, colour-wise, for a while. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
On 8/20/2015 9:32 AM, john whelan wrote: As someone affected I wish to dissent therefore you do not have consensus not every one consents. Although not essential to the style discussion, I think it's important to correct this point. Consensus is not unanimity. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418#section-3.3 is a good read, as it mentions mailing lists. Another part is identifying and resolving of concerns. This does not mean everyone will agree with how their concern is resolved, which is impossible when two concerns do not have a compatible resolution. The decision to merge or not lies with the maintainers, and ultimately, with Andy. We'll look at comments on the Github issue, the cartography change and come to a final decision. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
Þann 20.8.2015 18:36, skrifaði Frederik Ramm: Your use case of "easily recognizable tertiary road in sparsely populated regions" is valid, but perhaps it is "niche" enough to accept that it need to be served by the main map style. I'm fairly certain that the rural regions of the world are not a "niche" but where we are sorely lacking in data and where our growth in Africa (for example) will come. Having done data quality checks on settlements of the world thousands of them are still just a name on the map with no road connections and there tertiary roads will be needed to go. I'm not averse to red/yellow taking over personally but the expense is too great for me at the moment. We need to find a way to make tertiary still recognizable. --JBJ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
The humanitarian style uses a good compromize to represent the hierarchy of roads. The blue is replaced by a violet color. This maitains a larger color palette to represent the hierarchy of roads. And, importantly, the yellow color is kept for tertiary roads. I also think that it is important to color the tertiary roads to show a good hierarchy of roads in rural areas. Pierre De : Jóhannes Birgir Jensson À : talk@openstreetmap.org Envoyé le : Jeudi 20 août 2015 15h37 Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift Þann 20.8.2015 18:36, skrifaði Frederik Ramm: > Your use case of "easily recognizable tertiary road in sparsely > populated regions" is valid, but perhaps it is "niche" enough to > accept that it need to be served by the main map style. I'm fairly certain that the rural regions of the world are not a "niche" but where we are sorely lacking in data and where our growth in Africa (for example) will come. Having done data quality checks on settlements of the world thousands of them are still just a name on the map with no road connections and there tertiary roads will be needed to go. I'm not averse to red/yellow taking over personally but the expense is too great for me at the moment. We need to find a way to make tertiary still recognizable. --JBJ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
Paul Johnson ursamundi.org> writes: > Along these lines, the standard style as it isn't too far off from what Americans expect out of a motorist-oriented roadmap (though mapgeeks might see it as a bit "German" by comparison to our maps). Surface streets tend to be all the same color (usually purple or red) with the thickness of the lines tending to be rather thin, increasing in thickness up to primary or sometimes trunk, with motorways tending to be purple with red borders. Toll roads are always green, there's never ways that are green that are not toll. This style of rendering is almost certainly heavily influenced by Rand McNally, given it's ubiquity for casual use maps, which traditionally has favored as described above in a somewhat simplified, stylized form (such as rather than each ramp mapped out in detail, an entire, possibly almost absurdly complex junction, is simplified to a single white square representing a motorway junction). Rand McNally was, for quite a long time, the official cartography provider for the American Automobile Association, which probably helped propel this style as an expectation. Thomas Guide (still usually preferred by professional local drivers even when equipped with a GPS in the US, as a single metro gets published as a lay-flat atlas hundreds or thousands of pages long with detailed annotation, sometimes down to building suite level, at a scale roughly equal to z20 and handy for that "last thousand feet" navigation) tends to use the same form, but rather than simplifying junctions, often goes the map porn route by mapping out everything to scale without simplification. A few additional observations from having used a variety of print atlases by Rand McNally, DeLorme, and municipal suppliers: - Controlled-access highways (that is, motorways with dual carriageways) are commonly colored red, amber, purple, or blue. The specific color doesn't matter so much, just as long as it isn't green (which is reserved for toll roads, as Paul points out). Motorways are drawn as 2-3 parallel strokes, imitating the dual carriageways. - Limited-access roads (think trunk or primary) are given a single thick stroke, colored black, except for U.S. routes, which are usually red. All other roads are given a single, thin stroke. In the West, prominent unpaved roads might be dashed. There usually aren't any other classifications. - Streets in general are very thin because each street label is placed above the street, not on it. However, I have a few municipal maps that do place the label inside much wider roads, giving the map a more casual feel, less like a schematic. - Full motorway junctions are simplified into white squares or diamonds, while partial junctions are half that: a thin rectangle. At higher "zoom levels", a complex junction such as a cloverleaf is drawn in full, but the space inside it is filled in the same color as the motorway. - Shields are either reproduced in colors that match the signage, or they're colored to match the road. So a map might end up with white-on-blue Interstate shields, red-on-white U.S. route shields, and black-on-white state route shields. I would consider the proposed style to be closer to what a U.S. visitor would expect than the current UK-influenced style. -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
On 20/08/15 22:46, Minh Nguyen wrote: > - Shields are either reproduced in colors that match the signage, or > they're colored to match the road. So a map might end up with white-on-blue > Interstate shields, red-on-white U.S. route shields, and black-on-white > state route shields. > > I would consider the proposed style to be closer to what a U.S. visitor > would expect than the current UK-influenced style. Actually I'm just looking to ditch the bloody rounded ends on the UK maps ... It's not something I recognise as 'UK style' ... someone invented it ... On OSMAND it makes the road and motorway numbers difficult to read ( and OSMAND has lost the green roads which is something I'm trying to get back there as well! :) ) One thing which I still find a problem is that 'B' roads in the UK are 'yellow', not the unclassified ones so I'd like to loose the orange back to yellow and then correct the problem that having half of the local short cuts difficult to see and other less useful ones highlighted. This is probably simply that the wrong tagging is being used, but some of these smaller roads are essentially main routes so tagging as a 'service road' is correct for the local usage, but not for main stream routing and where the likes of OSMAND simply gets the routing wrong ... as do other routers :( -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
Lester Caine lsces.co.uk> writes: > Just what is the convention in the US, Russia or China? Regarding the U.S., Paul and I describe the conventions here in detail: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2015-August/073892.html But the short version is: real highway shields. Their absence is striking to Americans, far more than the highway colors (which aren't as uniform in U.S. print cartography as they are in the U.K.). There are plenty of technical issues to work out, in any case: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/508 -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] OSM.org rendering and features [was Re: The Proposed Great Colour Shift]
W dniu 20.08.2015 17:53, Andy Townsend napisał(a): On 20/08/2015 16:25, Ben Laenen wrote: Thing is that UK won't ever be happy with another colour scheme and the rest of the world won't ever be happy with a UK scheme. ... and then in the UK we can start arguing about and "English" style vs a "Scottish" one and then a "Yorkshire" one vs "Surrey" :) I wanted to start my own topic one day, but I feel that you have touched very important and general problem related to rendering, which is amplified by current changes authored by Mateusz. We have very uncomfortable situation with rendering styles on our main website: out of 5 styles available only 2 are general, and only one - default one - is to some reasonable extent an OSM community effort (technically it's open, in practice not much people are active there, it is rather detached from other parts of OSM and is rather conservative socially). HOT is kind of a special task force and community in itself, as far as I understand, so I don't count it as a general style. Goals of default style are also non-uniform: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/CARTOGRAPHY.md#purposes which makes it even harder to deal with. It was just a matter of time if someone will try to make some bigger changes, which will result in explosion. And here we are... *** My point is: we - as an OSM community - need more styling options, because default osm-carto style is unable to effectively take all the responsibilities and expectations. There are many solutions to consider. All of them have their strengths and weaknesses, in short they can be: 1. osm-carto-devel, which can be visually less elegant, but more intended for the mappers to see their work. However it means double the resources we use today, so this may be hard to achieve. 2. Layers like http://osm24.eu/ (POIs with opening hours) or http://osmapa.pl/w/area/ (highway:area=* test rendering), which are much lighter than full style - however they don't blend with underlying style seamlessly. 3. Vector tiles, which allow having plenty of styles available and high personalization, but on the other hand deserve additional infrastructure (I guess less than with osm-carto-devel?) and are probably much slower to render, because it's done on the client side. I believe 3. is the future. We won't be able to serve every possible style in any other way - be it UK, US, but also with local names in every language etc. It will also allow people to learn styling and enhance our collective skills in this regard. But maybe we could also use other styling options in the meantime. I also think about adding additional features, like support for umap ( http://umap.osm.ch ), which can help some users to create their own small maps based on OSM, and indoor or even 3D viewer included on the main website (think about multi-level malls and railway stations - they are unreadable today). I don't know how many resources we have to extend current situation, but rendering maps is simply too important for the people to live with just one general purpose style influenced by the community. -- "The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down" [A. Cohen] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
