Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 6:09 PM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 22/08/2015, John Eldredge wrote: > > So, if you are looking for a route without steep grades, a former > > railway is a natural choice. > > Do people actually do this ? Yes, I do. > It sounds like a strawman argument to me. > I do a fair bit of walking and cycling, and when planing a trip I look > at the global topographic data but it never occured to me to look for > railroads. Why use the local railroad hint when you've got the global > DEM data ? DEM is great for showing large differences in elevation, but it tends to suffer a bit when it comes to subtle cues. Compare http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14953012 , http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14939296 , http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/199770540 , and http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14943691 to the roughly parallel highway OK 11. These segments are likely (but not yet formally proposed) to be an extension of the Osage Prairie Trail, closing the gap from metro Tulsa to the capitol of the Osage Nation and a yet to be determined distance farther north along the former railroad. That grade, just from standard railroad engineering practices, is unlikely to be steeper than 2% for any significant distance and extremely unlikely to be steeper than 4%. OK 11, however, is a rollercoaster of a highway with many steep grades, some of which are easily past 8%. The DEM really glosses over this thanks to Tulsa and Pawhuska only being about 100 feet difference in elevation. The intervening terrain is pocked with rolling hills and cliffs formed from erosion, with the highest point on the highway being about 1000 feet. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] stop deleting abandoned railroads
For what it's worth, I'm in favour of tagging dismantled railways as railway=dismantled Even if it does pass through newly built buildings. Polyglot 2015-08-25 9:52 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson : > On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 6:09 PM, moltonel 3x Combo > wrote: > >> On 22/08/2015, John Eldredge wrote: >> > So, if you are looking for a route without steep grades, a former >> > railway is a natural choice. >> >> Do people actually do this ? > > > Yes, I do. > > >> It sounds like a strawman argument to me. >> I do a fair bit of walking and cycling, and when planing a trip I look >> at the global topographic data but it never occured to me to look for >> railroads. Why use the local railroad hint when you've got the global >> DEM data ? > > > DEM is great for showing large differences in elevation, but it tends to > suffer a bit when it comes to subtle cues. Compare > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14953012 , > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14939296 , > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/199770540 , and > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14943691 to the roughly parallel highway > OK 11. These segments are likely (but not yet formally proposed) to be an > extension of the Osage Prairie Trail, closing the gap from metro Tulsa to > the capitol of the Osage Nation and a yet to be determined distance farther > north along the former railroad. That grade, just from standard railroad > engineering practices, is unlikely to be steeper than 2% for any > significant distance and extremely unlikely to be steeper than 4%. OK 11, > however, is a rollercoaster of a highway with many steep grades, some of > which are easily past 8%. The DEM really glosses over this thanks to Tulsa > and Pawhuska only being about 100 feet difference in elevation. The > intervening terrain is pocked with rolling hills and cliffs formed from > erosion, with the highest point on the highway being about 1000 feet. > > ___ > 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] stop deleting abandoned railroads
On Tue Aug 25 09:12:15 2015 GMT+0100, Jo wrote: > For what it's worth, I'm in favour of tagging dismantled railways as > > railway=dismantled +1 > > Even if it does pass through newly built buildings. -1 I passionately believe dismantled railways should both be in openstreetmap and be rendered, but only where they actually still exist on the ground. They are important landscape features, and are shown by our biggest competitor in terms of maps for walkers. Existing as a road, cycleway, footpath, then leave the tags. Where they have been built on, then they no longer belong in openstreetmap. Rendering would highlight to local mappers that they exist in the database and provide an impetus to fix where they exist and where they don't. Phil (trigpoint) > Polyglot > > 2015-08-25 9:52 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson : > > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 6:09 PM, moltonel 3x Combo > > wrote: > > > >> On 22/08/2015, John Eldredge wrote: > >> > So, if you are looking for a route without steep grades, a former > >> > railway is a natural choice. > >> > >> Do people actually do this ? > > > > > > Yes, I do. > > > > > >> It sounds like a strawman argument to me. > >> I do a fair bit of walking and cycling, and when planing a trip I look > >> at the global topographic data but it never occured to me to look for > >> railroads. Why use the local railroad hint when you've got the global > >> DEM data ? > > > > > > DEM is great for showing large differences in elevation, but it tends to > > suffer a bit when it comes to subtle cues. Compare > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14953012 , > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14939296 , > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/199770540 , and > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14943691 to the roughly parallel highway > > OK 11. These segments are likely (but not yet formally proposed) to be an > > extension of the Osage Prairie Trail, closing the gap from metro Tulsa to > > the capitol of the Osage Nation and a yet to be determined distance farther > > north along the former railroad. That grade, just from standard railroad > > engineering practices, is unlikely to be steeper than 2% for any > > significant distance and extremely unlikely to be steeper than 4%. OK 11, > > however, is a rollercoaster of a highway with many steep grades, some of > > which are easily past 8%. The DEM really glosses over this thanks to Tulsa > > and Pawhuska only being about 100 feet difference in elevation. The > > intervening terrain is pocked with rolling hills and cliffs formed from > > erosion, with the highest point on the highway being about 1000 feet. > > > > ___ > > talk mailing list > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Fwd: announcement: hackathon at the Monza F1 racing circuit on October 29-30, 2015
[apologies for multiple postings] Hi - please see the link below: a) http://www.pibinko.org/are-you-a-developer-come-to-the-connected-automobiles-2015-hackathon-in-monza-october-29-30/ Registrations open on September 15. b) If you have any questions about the general organization of the event, you may use the form on the event web page. If you have questions more specifically related to the geo- aspects of the event, you can still use the form, but I'd appreciate if you can also write to me (as I will have to answer those questions anyway ;) ). Best regards from Italy! Andrea Giacomelli http://www.pibinko.org i...@pibinko.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On 8/21/2015 8:51 PM, Gregory Arenius wrote: The OSM community is what OSM is even more than it is a map. People that are passionate about railways are a part of that community and they do contribute a lot, especially in the US where we don't have as many mappers. They pour lots of time and love and passion into their efforts. I don't think a policy of deleting that work just because what they're mapping isn't immediately visible on the ground is a good way of building and strengthening our community. In fact, as it is easy to see in this thread, its actively doing the opposite. And community is what makes OSM. I'd therefor like to propose that abandoned railways be treated like borders. Even if you can't see it along a given stretch there are people who can and they have put a huge amount of effort into that work. Lets respect that and strengthen the community rather than deleting it and doing the opposite. Cheers, Greg I just want to add my voice to those who support the above approach. I am not a railway enthusiast, but I do recognize the important role they play in the development and landscape of the US and probably other countries. I really appreciate those who map in-use, disused and abandoned railways, thank you for adding important, rich and useful data to the map. I think part of this conversation should be reprized: Abandoned railways are recognizable by people who know what they are looking at, they are in essence "there on the ground currently", just because I don't have the knowledge to recognize and map them, does not mean they do not exist. All I understood Russ to be asking was to stop deleting and suggesting deletion of abandoned railways without checking with the person or people who know what they are doing in regards to mapping them and I agree that should stop. As mentioned above, I see no harm to mapping an abandoned railway, even if it is based on two end points and knowledge of the railway system. No one has to render it, but people like me who print custom maps for hiking / exploring / geocaching might very well choose to render it for our activities as they are part of the landscape even if not obvious. I would also like to see them in OHM just help OHM along, but not instead of in OSM. Regards, Blake ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Preserving History ...
sent from a phone > Am 24.08.2015 um 10:05 schrieb Lester Caine : > > Because 'it's easier to delete and start > again' is encouraged rather than 'preserve the history of development' > where someone HAS already spent the time doing that in the past so much > is being lost! can you expand on this? Where are people encouraged to delete rather than refine? I've always thought we would actually be encouraging people to retain history cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Abandoned Rails
On 24/08/2015, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > cycle.travel's rendering is 1300 lines of CartoCSS, 1400 of .mml, 300 lines > of Lua preprocessing, and 350 lines of Ruby/PostGIS postprocessing. > > Of this, the code required to show only operational railways is 100 > characters - a rounding error. It's a detail in a 1400-character line of > .mml and it was copied directly from OSM-Bright, the base style used by > switch2osm. In other words, anyone setting up an OSM tileserver from the > canonical instructions already gets this for free. Fair enough, it's easy to get a bootstrap (for the record, I was talking about knowledge, not lines of code). The bootstrap might not have been used or might not be available for a particular usecase, but I get your point. Sorry for placing the principle of least surprise bar too high. > There are plenty of issues with OSM railway tagging that make decent > rendering, routing and analysis hard. (railway=station covering both > mainline stations and preserved heritage attractions is the first that > springs to mind.) railway=dismantled is not one of them. > > As to whether utterly dismantled railways belong in the OSM database, I > couldn't really care less. In terms of doctrine, they probably don't, though > let's not overstate the issue: I suspect more bytes have been spilled in > this thread than it would take to encode a dump of current > railway=dismantled in .pbf format. I'm aware of that (and skewing the ratio even further as I write this), but this is about more than just railways. Sorry for the fearmongering, but letting one kind of nonexistent objects into OSM opens the door to more. Countering with "existing crap in the db doesn't justify adding more crap" hasn't worked well in the past. To be honest, I too could live with a few railway=dismantled in the db. The bigger issues are the idea of allowing some data in even when you agree it shouldn't be there, protecting that data for political rather than technical reasons, and the precedent this would set. > But Gregory, Greg and Jason have it > right. This is not about some precious notion of purity, it's about > community. > > Outside the two fundamentals of "openly licensed" and "crowdsourced", OSM is > characterised by its pragmatism. We do what works. What works is a community > of people who feel respected and empowered. By preventing contributors to fix errors in the db (as miscommunicated as they were, I'm sure the deletions that started this thread were meant as fixes) just because they come from some kind of Most Valued Contributor, you're disempowering the community as a whole to empower a fraction of it. I'm not going to pull statistics out of my magick hat, but to me this looks like a net long-term loss. > And bearing in mind that we're > talking about the US here, we need all the community we can get. > > Read Minh Nguyen's excellent new diary post > (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Minh%20Nguyen/diary/35646). Even in the > super-affluent, super-educated Bay Area, OSM is barely at the stage that > Europe reached five or more years ago. It is "an endless parade of outdated > street configurations, missing landmarks, test edits". > > But, he notes, there is "plenty of rail and bike infrastructure". > > This is what characterised OSM adoption here in Britain. The enthusiasts are > the first to "get it": the railfans, the cyclists. Widespread take-up comes > later, once the enthusiasts have built something good. > > The last thing we want to do in the US is drive away the few enthusiasts we > currently have. I know :( I'd hate to see someone leave because of that discussion. I'd love to see improvements in the OSM tooling and/or schemas so that we can properly map historical features. So that dismantled railways (amongst other no-longer-existing features) can be mapped without hurting present-day mapping, which was initially OSM's only usecase. So that entering that kind of data isn't a deletion-worthy error anymore, but a normal usecase. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Preserving History ...
Retaining the history is the most respectful thing you can do for mappers but I have seen a lot of new'ish mappers who feel that just deleting and starting over is easier. In JOSM the "replace geometry" function can be used and it will retain the history and lets you "map from scratch" and retain history. I have remapped very dense urban areas from scratch then used replace geometry to replace the buildings. Once in a while a building was mapped as two when it was really one building so you have to delete. But in general if you want to map from scratch, make a new layer, map, merge layers, replace geometry, done, history retained and you mapped from scratch. Same thing with roads that need updating, you just remap it and then replace geometry or use the improve way tool, either one will preserve history. If anyone wants a detailed usage example just let me know, I made a youtube video demonstrating how remap a city block with replace geometry, but the steps I put in above are essentially it. Regards blake On 8/25/2015 4:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone Am 24.08.2015 um 10:05 schrieb Lester Caine : Because 'it's easier to delete and start again' is encouraged rather than 'preserve the history of development' where someone HAS already spent the time doing that in the past so much is being lost! can you expand on this? Where are people encouraged to delete rather than refine? I've always thought we would actually be encouraging people to retain history cheers Martin ___ 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] Abandoned Rails
On 25/08/2015, Blake Girardot wrote: > I am not a railway enthusiast, but I do recognize the important role > they play in the development and landscape of the US and probably other > countries. > > I really appreciate those who map in-use, disused and abandoned > railways, thank you for adding important, rich and useful data to the map. > > I think part of this conversation should be reprized: Abandoned railways > are recognizable by people who know what they are looking at, they are > in essence "there on the ground currently", just because I don't have > the knowledge to recognize and map them, does not mean they do not exist. For the record again, lest people think that my views are more extreme than they are, I agree with the above. Where I draw the line is against railway=dismantled, which by definition don't exist anymore. Typical examples are going thru a housing estate, a demolished (and rubble cleared) bridge, or a field where the former railway isn't even visible in crop groth differences. When the state goes from "not obviously there" to "obviously not there". > All I understood Russ to be asking was to stop deleting and suggesting > deletion of abandoned railways without checking with the person or > people who know what they are doing in regards to mapping them and I > agree that should stop. Heavy changes to someone else's work should come with a message to that someone else, but I'd argue that whoever deleted a railway=* going thru a housing estate knew what they were doing. > As mentioned above, I see no harm to mapping an abandoned railway, even > if it is based on two end points and knowledge of the railway system. One can often assert that something was here even when nothing is left of that thing. And is nothing is left of that thing, it shouldn't be mapped. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Preserving History ...
On 25/08/15 15:10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> Because 'it's easier to delete and start >> > again' is encouraged rather than 'preserve the history of development' >> > where someone HAS already spent the time doing that in the past so much >> > is being lost! > > can you expand on this? Where are people encouraged to delete rather than > refine? I've always thought we would actually be encouraging people to retain > history We encourage new users to use iD ... The first button on the tool pallet when you click on a line is 'Delete' and there are not covering notes in the learnOSM guide to suggest that it should only be used when necessary. Actually the getting started guide just ploughs straight in to adding stuff without any reference to the etiquette of modifying what is there already. http://learnosm.org/en/ Beginners Guide on the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners%27_guide is even lighter on guidelines ... Editing Standards page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions only has a 'If you choose to delete and redraw a whole road, check that the nodes don't themselves have tag' which should perhaps be a 'please do not delete a whole road as previous information will be lost'. Checking in the help forum many of the questions that as 'why can't I delete xxx' make no mention of why that should be a last resort. https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/41329/cant-edit-or-delete-street is a typical example but there was no mention on NOT deleting it. Actually I have yet to find ANY advise that advises simply refining what is there? ( And I'm still trying to track down the history of the Tollbar A46 route changes. Not sure if some if the history was redacted but I'm sure that these main roads were present ten years back. ) -- 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] Preserving History ...
Hi Lester, All of the resources you linked, you can improve! * https://github.com/hotosm/learnosm * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Beginners%27_guide&action=edit * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Editing_Standards_and_Conventions&action=edit You should fix these things, if you care about them. On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Lester Caine wrote: > On 25/08/15 15:10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> Because 'it's easier to delete and start > >> > again' is encouraged rather than 'preserve the history of development' > >> > where someone HAS already spent the time doing that in the past so > much > >> > is being lost! > > > > can you expand on this? Where are people encouraged to delete rather > than refine? I've always thought we would actually be encouraging people to > retain history > > We encourage new users to use iD ... The first button on the tool pallet > when you click on a line is 'Delete' and there are not covering notes in > the learnOSM guide to suggest that it should only be used when > necessary. Actually the getting started guide just ploughs straight in > to adding stuff without any reference to the etiquette of modifying what > is there already. http://learnosm.org/en/ > > Beginners Guide on the wiki > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners%27_guide is even lighter on > guidelines ... > > Editing Standards page > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions > only has a 'If you choose to delete and redraw a whole road, check that > the nodes don't themselves have tag' which should perhaps be a 'please > do not delete a whole road as previous information will be lost'. > > Checking in the help forum many of the questions that as 'why can't I > delete xxx' make no mention of why that should be a last resort. > https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/41329/cant-edit-or-delete-street > is > a typical example but there was no mention on NOT deleting it. > > Actually I have yet to find ANY advise that advises simply refining what > is there? > > ( And I'm still trying to track down the history of the Tollbar A46 > route changes. Not sure if some if the history was redacted but I'm sure > that these main roads were present ten years back. ) > > -- > 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 > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Preserving History ...
On 25/08/2015, Blake Girardot wrote: > But in general if you want to map from scratch, make a new layer, map, > merge layers, replace geometry, done, history retained and you mapped > from scratch. I wonder if JOSM could do that automatically. Before uploading, JOSM would look at all objects deleted during this editing session, fuzzy-match new objects at the same location and tags, and perform the replace-geometry tag automatically. > Same thing with roads that need updating, you just remap it and then > replace geometry or use the improve way tool, either one will preserve > history. Another tip for preserving history in JOSM: if you split a way in two, the start of the way is the one that retains history and the end of the way (where the arrow is) is new. Reversing the way before spliting it can help keep the history on the important section. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Preserving History ...
On 8/25/2015 5:29 PM, Tom MacWright wrote: Hi Lester, All of the resources you linked, you can improve! * https://github.com/hotosm/learnosm * Here is the ticket I just created for learnosm, and if I can get the site updated soon'ish I will, because it does matter to me :) https://github.com/hotosm/learnosm/issues/461 Cheers, Blake ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Preserving History ...
On 25/08/15 16:29, Tom MacWright wrote: > All of the resources you linked, you can improve! > > * https://github.com/hotosm/learnosm > * > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Beginners%27_guide&action=edit > * > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Editing_Standards_and_Conventions&action=edit > > You should fix these things, if you care about them. My improvement would be 'Don't touch iD with a barge pole!' :) But the JOSM snippets are interesting and proper documentation on just how we can observe best practice to maintain history is something which is missing. But to go with this I think that adding warnings to any delete action IN the editors would be more help. That is in the absence of simply disabling 'delete' on objects that are already part of the database. I am gathering more notes on how material is being lost because of the way delete is handled, but I need to get the tile server live first while still paying the bills ... -- 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] Preserving History ...
It seems like the only thing you're contributing is negativity. On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Lester Caine wrote: > On 25/08/15 16:29, Tom MacWright wrote: > > All of the resources you linked, you can improve! > > > > * https://github.com/hotosm/learnosm > > * > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Beginners%27_guide&action=edit > > * > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Editing_Standards_and_Conventions&action=edit > > > > You should fix these things, if you care about them. > > My improvement would be 'Don't touch iD with a barge pole!' :) > > But the JOSM snippets are interesting and proper documentation on just > how we can observe best practice to maintain history is something which > is missing. > > But to go with this I think that adding warnings to any delete action IN > the editors would be more help. That is in the absence of simply > disabling 'delete' on objects that are already part of the database. > > I am gathering more notes on how material is being lost because of the > way delete is handled, but I need to get the tile server live first > while still paying the bills ... > > -- > 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 > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Preserving History ...
On 25/08/15 17:24, Tom MacWright wrote: > It seems like the only thing you're contributing is negativity. http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/OSM+Development Not that I've got all the latest crib sheets working yet :( Last system I had fully functional was on an SUSE 12.3 -- 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] OSM.org rendering and features [was Re: The Proposed Great Colour Shift]
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Daniel Koć wrote: > 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). I see it as a relatively unhappy situation as well. The osm-carto maintainers spent a lot of time fending off requests and demands from outsiders: it looks like a castle with barbarians at the gate. I think a new style, as open as the tagging scheme and database, is a way out both for osm-carto's maintainers and for meeting the wider community needs. -- Separately there's tension over the "clutter of the map". This really should be broken down: * Line styles and fills * points of interest * urban vs. rural areas. New line styles and fills present a visual burden to understanding the map. Too many dashes dots and subtle color variations and everything looks like mush. New POI's, particularly obscure ones, impact few people because they are usually not visible. These often come with text labels that help clarify the meaning of any symbol. There really should be little barrier to rendering more POI types. Many issues are density dependent. In a rural area showing everything is generally just fine and desired. For urban areas overload sets in by the time the fire hydrants, manhole covers, electric lines, bike racks, baby hatches and crosswalks are all rendered. There's a lot of interesting work to be done in the area of density specific rendering: rendering that's sensitive to the scale density and land use type. --- The map is also largely delivered in electronic form. There's a lot of potential for delivering dynamic legends and "click for more information", resolving many issues of potential viewer confusion. The flat static map need not communicate everything. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
