Re: [OSM-talk] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[Dave F]

On 11/08/2016 19:37, Michał Brzozowski wrote:


Most of the area in city centers... is
covered with townhouses with retail/service tenants residing at the
ground level, rest of the building being residential. Therefore
landuse=residential is more appropriate and is mapped so.


I disagree with this.

In such circumstances I tag it as landuse=retail
I work on the principle of what the end user will more likely want to 
find: The nearest local shops with a KFC outlet, or the dingy bedsit 
above it.


ATM there's no clear tagging scheme to deal with multi level/multi usage 
developments & AFAIK, the major renderings don't show it.


Dave F.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[Elena ``of Valhalla'']

On 2016-08-12 at 10:44:06 +0200, Maarten Deen wrote:
> One suche lure will cost € 0,60 if you have to buy it using in-app purchases
> and the money probably goes to Nintendo.

probably to Niantic, who wrote the app, and not Nintendo (altought
Nintendo may get a cut). Not that it's really relevant.

> Because of that, I am so happy that OSM is an open map. I do not assume any
> workgroup within OSM will ever try to impose a ban of mapping certain
> features because OSM is not receiving money from them.

This. this. this.

With my user hat on, "only stuff that is interesting to another user
gets mapped" is a much better failure mode than "only stuff that pays
enough gets mapped".

-- 
Elena ``of Valhalla''

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[Maarten Deen]

On 2016-08-12 09:48, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote:

On 11.08.2016 20:37, Michał Brzozowski wrote:


...

The activity areas aren't merely about the usage itself, but, well,
the activity - i.e. concentration of interesting places and number
of
people visiting them (or other similar popularity metric).

 I saw recently a documentary about the phenomenon of a Pokemon game.
A retail shop owner said in this film that he pays money so that
digital creatures appear more often at the entrance of his shop. And
people (potential clients) are hanging around his shop because of it.


Pokemon Go. It is an online game where you see a map on your phone and 
have to capture Pokemon (the digital creatures). There are Pokestops at 
fixed locations where you can get items to help you catch Pokemon (once 
every 5 minutes). You can attache a "lure" to the Pokestop so that a lot 
of Pokemon will appear close to the Pokestop. So hanging around a 
Pokestop with a lure will give you lots of Pokemon and lots of items.


One suche lure will cost € 0,60 if you have to buy it using in-app 
purchases and the money probably goes to Nintendo.
So it is not an immediate "pay to get my shop on the map" but this can 
be a big income booster. Especially for bars and restaurants.


It has also already been used by the police to the effect to make a 
crowd in unsurveilled area's so burglars get disencouraged to go there.



In principle the activity areas could be monetized in similar way by
the commercial maps. For example, a new shopping center wants to be
shown on the map as a high activity area, and it is ready to pay for
it. Finally, it may end up as a sort of an additional tax for
retailers. If one does not pay, the area will be shown on the map as
abandoned, with no activity whatsoever.


Because of that, I am so happy that OSM is an open map. I do not assume 
any workgroup within OSM will ever try to impose a ban of mapping 
certain features because OSM is not receiving money from them.
In principle, this would be extortion (or some lesser case of it) and I 
certainly see Google capable of that "you give me money or otherwise I 
won't map your business".


Regards,
Maarten


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[Oleksiy Muzalyev]

On 11.08.2016 20:37, Michał Brzozowski wrote:

...
The activity areas aren't merely about the usage itself, but, well,
the activity - i.e. concentration of interesting places and number of
people visiting them (or other similar popularity metric).
I saw recently a documentary about the phenomenon of a Pokemon game. A 
retail shop owner said in this film that he pays money so that digital 
creatures appear more often at the entrance of his shop. And people 
(potential clients) are hanging around his shop because of it.


In principle the activity areas could be monetized in similar way by the 
commercial maps. For example, a new shopping center wants to be shown on 
the map as a high activity area, and it is ready to pay for it. Finally, 
it may end up as a sort of an additional tax for retailers. If one does 
not pay, the area will be shown on the map as abandoned, with no 
activity whatsoever.


Another thought, - for some people an activity could be dancing, for 
other shopping, or cycling, running, paragliding, diving, reading, etc. 
It is hard to define what is interesting to people. For some it could be 
a discotheque, or clothing & fashion shop, or a bar, for others a 
stadium, a beach, a library, a cycling path, etc. /De gustibus non est 
disputandum./


brgds
O.M.*
*
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 11 ago 2016, alle ore 18:03, David Fisher  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> Out of interest, do you also take issue with the central point of my
> last post -- that "landuse=retail" polygons may be seen as a similar
> sort of concept to Google's beige areas?  (assuming such polygons are
> placed by mappers who have at least a passing knowledge of the area in
> question)


I'm unsure where retail is the right choice. For shopping malls and big box 
stores and department stores, supermarkets, etc. it surely is, but in European 
city centres (the reality where I mostly map) you will typically find shops and 
offices and residential landuse in a mixture (plus churches, education, 
cultural usage (cinema, theatre, museums, etc.) restaurants, banks, etc.). 
Sometimes these areas, like the central pedestrian area you can find in most 
German cities, are mapped as landuse=retail as well.

The non-residential features are all mappable with common tags as individual 
pois, i.e. there can be 2 (or more) types of residential areas, those with just 
residences and those with a different use in part of the building. But the 
evaluation requires a lot if spatial analysis, while an explicit new landuse 
could save a lot of work. 

There's also an old proposal in the wiki, but it's not very much in use: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/centre_zone


cheers,
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 11 ago 2016, alle ore 18:03, David Fisher  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> Maybe I was unclear, or maybe we're talking at cross-purposes


yes, I think I got you wrong in your first mail, because it used to be common 
(and maybe still is in some places) having those "one big polygon for the whole 
settlement tagged with residential landuse"-areas.

Cheers,
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[Michał Brzozowski]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 6:03 PM, David Fisher  wrote:
> Out of interest, do you also take issue with the central point of my
> last post -- that "landuse=retail" polygons may be seen as a similar
> sort of concept to Google's beige areas?  (assuming such polygons are
> placed by mappers who have at least a passing knowledge of the area in
> question)

Sorry for plugging to the post ;) I'm afraid it won't work out well.
Most of the area in city centers (like areas that I linked to) is
covered with townhouses with retail/service tenants residing at the
ground level, rest of the building being residential. Therefore
landuse=residential is more appropriate and is mapped so.

The activity areas aren't merely about the usage itself, but, well,
the activity - i.e. concentration of interesting places and number of
people visiting them (or other similar popularity metric).

Michał

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[David Fisher]

Maybe I was unclear, or maybe we're talking at cross-purposes (or
maybe I'm just wrong!).  You're quite right, a fair share of built-up
areas are residential -- I would go further and say that the
*majority* of built-up areas are residential!  But I don't mean using
a single giant polygon to denote a particular settlement.  I agree
with you there.  Rather, I mean ensuring that all major residential
areas surrounding the "high street/CBD/whatever" of a settlement are
covered by a network of "landuse=residential" polygons.  The density
of these polygons is up to the mapper, starting with larger, rougher
polygons which can be granularised as time goes by.  I don't see why
this is mapping for the renderer, any more than covering an area of
forest, visible on aerial imagery, with a large, rough
"natural=wood/forest" polygon would be, in the absence of anything
better.

Out of interest, do you also take issue with the central point of my
last post -- that "landuse=retail" polygons may be seen as a similar
sort of concept to Google's beige areas?  (assuming such polygons are
placed by mappers who have at least a passing knowledge of the area in
question)

Thanks,

David.




On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> Il giorno 11 ago 2016, alle ore 15:10, David Fisher  
>> ha scritto:
>>
>>  (I'm also a fan of
>> "landuse=residential" polygons to highlight built-up areas, though I
>> know some OSM-ers disagree.)
>
>
> I believe most OSMers, including the wiki, disagree. Sounds like a clear case 
> of mapping for the renderer (presuming it's built up but not residential of 
> course, a fair share of built up areas in settlements are indeed residential 
> landuse).
> Why don't you use place polygons?
>
>
> cheers,
> Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 11 ago 2016, alle ore 15:10, David Fisher  ha 
> scritto:
> 
>  (I'm also a fan of
> "landuse=residential" polygons to highlight built-up areas, though I
> know some OSM-ers disagree.)


I believe most OSMers, including the wiki, disagree. Sounds like a clear case 
of mapping for the renderer (presuming it's built up but not residential of 
course, a fair share of built up areas in settlements are indeed residential 
landuse).
Why don't you use place polygons?


cheers,
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[David Fisher]

I too am a fan of the new Google Maps colour scheme -- and it's very
interesting that they've gone for a similar scheme to the new (ish)
OSM scheme!   I've always thought of "landuse" as being equivalent to
Google's beige "high activity" areas -- particularly "landuse=retail"
to highlight town centres and retail parks.  (I'm also a fan of
"landuse=residential" polygons to highlight built-up areas, though I
know some OSM-ers disagree.)  So IMO, OSM already has the ability to
match Google in this regard -- but using polygons rather than
algorithms.

David F (user Pgd81)


On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Michał Brzozowski  wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Oleksiy Muzalyev
>  wrote:
>> Using colors like this is an excellent idea, however we shall not rely on
>> colors alone as several percent of people cannot distinguish colors due to
>> color blindness [1]. Besides, color blindness may develop with an advanced
>> age, so no one is color-safe.
>>
>> We do not hear often about color blindness as people tend not to speak about
>> it. But in fact maybe up to ten percent cannot see differences between
>> certain colors at all.
>
> I am more interested in the processing step itself and not styling,
> which is trivial. To be clear, I am not talking about inclusion of
> this in osm-carto. It is overloaded anyway.
>
> I asked myself: If they use buildings to generate it, what do they do
> when they aren't available? Turns out that for places without building
> outlines they use street geometry to generate highlights [1][2].
> Actually, when you compare it to using building outlines [2][3] it
> looks somewhat cleaner. But in the end, buildings help too, as streets
> may not always cover areas of interest. I speculate it is made similar
> in geometrical appearance to built-up areas (orthogonal / straight
> edges) on purpose. A smooth blob would be confusing.
>
> I posted a thread here because I thought it may inspire people who
> make their own OSM-based map styles ;) The devil is always in the
> details and we would learn much from a proof of concept, both in terms
> of how to achieve a similar effect and how to integrate external open
> datasets in a meaningful manner.
>
> [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@54.86,18.2042257,15.92z?hl=en
> [2] https://www.google.com/maps/@54.3514061,18.6551512,15.88z?hl=en
> [3] https://www.google.com/maps/@54.5175292,18.5419689,15z?hl=en
> [4] https://www.google.com/maps/@54.4440137,18.5640867,16.67z?hl=en
>
> Michał
>
> ___
> 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] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[Michał Brzozowski]

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Oleksiy Muzalyev
 wrote:
> Using colors like this is an excellent idea, however we shall not rely on
> colors alone as several percent of people cannot distinguish colors due to
> color blindness [1]. Besides, color blindness may develop with an advanced
> age, so no one is color-safe.
>
> We do not hear often about color blindness as people tend not to speak about
> it. But in fact maybe up to ten percent cannot see differences between
> certain colors at all.

I am more interested in the processing step itself and not styling,
which is trivial. To be clear, I am not talking about inclusion of
this in osm-carto. It is overloaded anyway.

I asked myself: If they use buildings to generate it, what do they do
when they aren't available? Turns out that for places without building
outlines they use street geometry to generate highlights [1][2].
Actually, when you compare it to using building outlines [2][3] it
looks somewhat cleaner. But in the end, buildings help too, as streets
may not always cover areas of interest. I speculate it is made similar
in geometrical appearance to built-up areas (orthogonal / straight
edges) on purpose. A smooth blob would be confusing.

I posted a thread here because I thought it may inspire people who
make their own OSM-based map styles ;) The devil is always in the
details and we would learn much from a proof of concept, both in terms
of how to achieve a similar effect and how to integrate external open
datasets in a meaningful manner.

[1] https://www.google.com/maps/@54.86,18.2042257,15.92z?hl=en
[2] https://www.google.com/maps/@54.3514061,18.6551512,15.88z?hl=en
[3] https://www.google.com/maps/@54.5175292,18.5419689,15z?hl=en
[4] https://www.google.com/maps/@54.4440137,18.5640867,16.67z?hl=en

Michał

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[Oleksiy Muzalyev]

OSM could use as Michał suggested Wiki{pedia|data} tags. There is also 
/wikimedia_commons/ [1] tag and geographical coordinates from Wikipedia 
articles themselves easily available via MediaWIki API.


I wrote a web-application which displays either Wikipedia articles on 
the map, or OSM Wiki{pedia|data|/media_commons/} tags as clickable 
markers with a link to a respective article, category, file, wikidata 
entry: http://ausleuchtung.ch/geo_wiki/ . It works for all language 
versions of Wikipedia.


Certainly if used on the main OSM map this data should be cashed. 
Edifices which have a Wikipedia article could be shown in a distinctive 
color too and have a small clickable icon with the letter "w" inside 
leading to a respective article, category, file, wikidata entry.


I would be even better than Google Maps as in Wikimedia categories and 
articles we can publish nowadays also HD videos of a building with 
aerial footage, so that one can see a building on the OSM map and then 
as if fly around it to view better [2].


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyon_Castle (select HD resolution 
1080P in player)


brgds
O.M.

On 08.08.2016 15:19, Janko Mihelić wrote:
I'm guessing Google is not only using POIs, but several other sources, 
like geo Tweets, got tagged photos put up on Google+, and so on. I 
think they are trying to make it easy for tourists to find the "in" 
spots where something is happening. If you're trying to find a nice 
restaurant, night club, pub or something like that, zoom in to the 
yellow area.


Janko

pon, 8. kol 2016. u 12:39 Oleksiy Muzalyev 
> 
napisao je:


Using colors like this is an excellent idea, however we shall not rely
on colors alone as several percent of people cannot distinguish colors
due to color blindness [1]. Besides, color blindness may develop
with an
advanced age, so no one is color-safe.

We do not hear often about color blindness as people tend not to speak
about it. But in fact maybe up to ten percent cannot see differences
between certain colors at all.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness

brgds
O.M.

On 07.08.2016 1:43, Michał Brzozowski wrote:
> There has been an update to Google Maps styling [1] and I have
to say,
> they left me impressed.
> The overall look is cleaner, which is very welcome after a series of
> disappointing changes, but the thing I consider very innovative
is how
> buildings (and on lower zooms - areas) with lots of "activities"
(i.e.
> POIs) are highlighted in beige.
>
> Now, traditional topo maps use building type attribute for this, eg.
> Polish ones use dark brown for public/retail buildings, orange for
> residential, violet for industrial and gray for everything else.
> Our (and I presume Google's no better) building type tagging is
pretty
> sparse, so this is a no-go.
>
> I wonder whether somebody could cook up a proof of concept of
this for
> OSM styling to see how it would work out. One may play with
assigning
> different weights to POIs according to their type or perceived
> importance via Wiki{pedia|data} tags.
>
> Michał
>
> [1]

https://maps.googleblog.com/2016/07/discover-action-around-you-with-updated.html
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



___
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] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[Janko Mihelić]

I'm guessing Google is not only using POIs, but several other sources, like
geo Tweets, got tagged photos put up on Google+, and so on. I think they
are trying to make it easy for tourists to find the "in" spots where
something is happening. If you're trying to find a nice restaurant, night
club, pub or something like that, zoom in to the yellow area.

Janko

pon, 8. kol 2016. u 12:39 Oleksiy Muzalyev 
napisao je:

> Using colors like this is an excellent idea, however we shall not rely
> on colors alone as several percent of people cannot distinguish colors
> due to color blindness [1]. Besides, color blindness may develop with an
> advanced age, so no one is color-safe.
>
> We do not hear often about color blindness as people tend not to speak
> about it. But in fact maybe up to ten percent cannot see differences
> between certain colors at all.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness
>
> brgds
> O.M.
>
> On 07.08.2016 1:43, Michał Brzozowski wrote:
> > There has been an update to Google Maps styling [1] and I have to say,
> > they left me impressed.
> > The overall look is cleaner, which is very welcome after a series of
> > disappointing changes, but the thing I consider very innovative is how
> > buildings (and on lower zooms - areas) with lots of "activities" (i.e.
> > POIs) are highlighted in beige.
> >
> > Now, traditional topo maps use building type attribute for this, eg.
> > Polish ones use dark brown for public/retail buildings, orange for
> > residential, violet for industrial and gray for everything else.
> > Our (and I presume Google's no better) building type tagging is pretty
> > sparse, so this is a no-go.
> >
> > I wonder whether somebody could cook up a proof of concept of this for
> > OSM styling to see how it would work out. One may play with assigning
> > different weights to POIs according to their type or perceived
> > importance via Wiki{pedia|data} tags.
> >
> > Michał
> >
> > [1]
> https://maps.googleblog.com/2016/07/discover-action-around-you-with-updated.html
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[Oleksiy Muzalyev]

Using colors like this is an excellent idea, however we shall not rely 
on colors alone as several percent of people cannot distinguish colors 
due to color blindness [1]. Besides, color blindness may develop with an 
advanced age, so no one is color-safe.


We do not hear often about color blindness as people tend not to speak 
about it. But in fact maybe up to ten percent cannot see differences 
between certain colors at all.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness

brgds
O.M.

On 07.08.2016 1:43, Michał Brzozowski wrote:

There has been an update to Google Maps styling [1] and I have to say,
they left me impressed.
The overall look is cleaner, which is very welcome after a series of
disappointing changes, but the thing I consider very innovative is how
buildings (and on lower zooms - areas) with lots of "activities" (i.e.
POIs) are highlighted in beige.

Now, traditional topo maps use building type attribute for this, eg.
Polish ones use dark brown for public/retail buildings, orange for
residential, violet for industrial and gray for everything else.
Our (and I presume Google's no better) building type tagging is pretty
sparse, so this is a no-go.

I wonder whether somebody could cook up a proof of concept of this for
OSM styling to see how it would work out. One may play with assigning
different weights to POIs according to their type or perceived
importance via Wiki{pedia|data} tags.

Michał

[1] 
https://maps.googleblog.com/2016/07/discover-action-around-you-with-updated.html

___
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] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 07 ago 2016, alle ore 01:43, Michał Brzozowski 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> Now, traditional topo maps use building type attribute for this, eg.
> Polish ones use dark brown for public/retail buildings, orange for
> residential, violet for industrial and gray for everything else.


I guess you meant to write "use" or usage type, our building types are 
architectural types.

cheers,
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[Michał Brzozowski]

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Maarten Deen  wrote:
>So it's a heatmap for POI's?

A thresholded heatmap, maybe. But really the area thingy seen on zooms
lower than buildings is a concave hull on slightly expanded outlines
of "interesting" buildings (as I said the ones which contain most of
given POIs). The area only includes most concentrated areas, so lone
interesting buildings don't count toward it.
Therefore, it's a hybrid of a point-in-polygon, spatial buffer,
concave hull and a heatmap.

>I still don't see the innovation.

The notion that something is not innovative just because it uses
familiar methods is fundamentally wrong. A solution consists of a
method (like an algorithm) and its application, that is a problem it
solves. If you apply an existing algorithm in a new and meaningful
way, that also is innovative. In fact, if the former were true, we
would have to dismiss half of science papers, if not more.

The classical heatmap on some random OSM hacker's website serves a
different purpose - analysis. It hasn't been used on general purpose
maps in a context of presenting "interesting" places automatically.
Still, if anybody can give an example of anybody doing similar thing
as Google did, I stand to be corrected.

The bottom line is that we don't live in a vacuum and it's beneficial
to look for fresh or unusual ideas wherever they come from. No need to
perpetuate an echo chamber.

Michał

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[Maarten Deen]

On 2016-08-07 08:29, Michał Brzozowski wrote:

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Maarten Deen  wrote:
I don't know if I understand you right, but different colors for 
different

purposes is hardly an innovation.


You haven't got the point I guess. The new thing is that this process
is carried out automatically (for most cases).


I still don't see the innovation. So it's a heatmap for POI's?

Maarten


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[Michał Brzozowski]

On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Maarten Deen  wrote:
> I don't know if I understand you right, but different colors for different
> purposes is hardly an innovation.

You haven't got the point I guess. The new thing is that this process
is carried out automatically (for most cases).

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[Maarten Deen]

On 2016-08-07 01:43, Michał Brzozowski wrote:

There has been an update to Google Maps styling [1] and I have to say,
they left me impressed.
The overall look is cleaner, which is very welcome after a series of
disappointing changes, but the thing I consider very innovative is how
buildings (and on lower zooms - areas) with lots of "activities" (i.e.
POIs) are highlighted in beige.


I don't know if I understand you right, but different colors for 
different purposes is hardly an innovation.


And overall I find the new Google Maps look not an improvement. The same 
as with the last OSM change, every color was toned down. All colors came 
closer together, highlights are gone, everything is more bland. If you 
evolve this you would get a white map.


Regards,
Maarten


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] New Google Maps style - interesting cartographic innovation

[Michał Brzozowski]

There has been an update to Google Maps styling [1] and I have to say,
they left me impressed.
The overall look is cleaner, which is very welcome after a series of
disappointing changes, but the thing I consider very innovative is how
buildings (and on lower zooms - areas) with lots of "activities" (i.e.
POIs) are highlighted in beige.

Now, traditional topo maps use building type attribute for this, eg.
Polish ones use dark brown for public/retail buildings, orange for
residential, violet for industrial and gray for everything else.
Our (and I presume Google's no better) building type tagging is pretty
sparse, so this is a no-go.

I wonder whether somebody could cook up a proof of concept of this for
OSM styling to see how it would work out. One may play with assigning
different weights to POIs according to their type or perceived
importance via Wiki{pedia|data} tags.

Michał

[1] 
https://maps.googleblog.com/2016/07/discover-action-around-you-with-updated.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk