Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Arlindo Pereira]

Cartinus, thanks for pointing out the link.

It'd be interesting to see OpenRailwayMap as a Featured Layer. I'll suggest
that on ORM's mailing list.

Cheers,
Arlindo

On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Cartinus  wrote:

> On 04-07-14 20:45, Arlindo Pereira wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the question should be: what could we do to have different map
>> styles (OpenRailwayMap and OpenPisteMap comes to my mind, but I'm pretty
>> sure you can think in others) appearing as layers on openstreetmap.org
>> website?
>>
>> We could come up with a process to do so, even if the rendering itself
>> doesn't happen on openstreetmap.org servers.
>>
>
> There is:  group/New_Tile_Layer_Guidelines>
>
> --
> ---
> m.v.g.,
> Cartinus
>
>
> ___
> 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] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Cartinus]

On 04-07-14 20:45, Arlindo Pereira wrote:

Perhaps the question should be: what could we do to have different map
styles (OpenRailwayMap and OpenPisteMap comes to my mind, but I'm pretty
sure you can think in others) appearing as layers on openstreetmap.org
website?

We could come up with a process to do so, even if the rendering itself
doesn't happen on openstreetmap.org servers.


There is: 



--
---
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Arlindo Pereira]

Perhaps the question should be: what could we do to have different map
styles (OpenRailwayMap and OpenPisteMap comes to my mind, but I'm pretty
sure you can think in others) appearing as layers on openstreetmap.org
website?

We could come up with a process to do so, even if the rendering itself
doesn't happen on openstreetmap.org servers.


Cheers,
Arlindo

On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:04 AM, SomeoneElse 
wrote:

> On 23/06/2014 22:12, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>
>> Andy,
>>
>> I think there is a lot of positives in the new rendering as well. I for
>> one am delighted to see some life back in the "standard" map style, this
>> way new tags can be (and have been) added to the rendering rules. So it's a
>> mix - some things are improved, some things are added, and a few things get
>> removed.
>>
>>
> That's not what's happening it's very much a one-way street - the standard
> style is being gutted, with obvious replacement available.
>
>
>  As for a "show it all map", I guess this is where Vector Tiles may help
>> in the future.
>>
>
> Perhaps you would care to elaborate on how that would work?  A vector tile
> implementation simply moves the place where rendering takes place; it does
> not eliminate the requirement.  Someone, somewhere, still has to decide
> "we'll show XYZ on ABC map style".
>
>
>  Meanwhile we have a lot of rendering options available, it's also easier
>> than ever to create your own, and tools like Overpass Turbo allow you to
>> on-the-fly checks of the data.
>>
>
> No, that doesn't work.  For example, look at the questions on the help
> site, and you'll see comments like "But I don't want to lose my time adding
> information that never appears" here:
>
> https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/34480/changes-dont-get-rendered
>
> A standard style that shows "what J Random Mapper has just added" is an
> essential part of the new mapper feedback loop.  It doesn't have to be
> _the_ standard style, just _a_ standard style.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
> PS:  By the way, Rob, your mail reader seems to be still broken - you're
> replying out of thread again.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[SomeoneElse]

On 23/06/2014 22:12, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Andy,

I think there is a lot of positives in the new rendering as well. I 
for one am delighted to see some life back in the "standard" map 
style, this way new tags can be (and have been) added to the rendering 
rules. So it's a mix - some things are improved, some things are 
added, and a few things get removed.




That's not what's happening it's very much a one-way street - the 
standard style is being gutted, with obvious replacement available.


As for a "show it all map", I guess this is where Vector Tiles may 
help in the future.


Perhaps you would care to elaborate on how that would work?  A vector 
tile implementation simply moves the place where rendering takes place; 
it does not eliminate the requirement.  Someone, somewhere, still has to 
decide "we'll show XYZ on ABC map style".


Meanwhile we have a lot of rendering options available, it's also 
easier than ever to create your own, and tools like Overpass Turbo 
allow you to on-the-fly checks of the data.


No, that doesn't work.  For example, look at the questions on the help 
site, and you'll see comments like "But I don't want to lose my time 
adding information that never appears" here:


https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/34480/changes-dont-get-rendered

A standard style that shows "what J Random Mapper has just added" is an 
essential part of the new mapper feedback loop.  It doesn't have to be 
_the_ standard style, just _a_ standard style.


Cheers,

Andy

PS:  By the way, Rob, your mail reader seems to be still broken - you're 
replying out of thread again.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Paul Johnson]

I second this.  Even some form of SVG would be an improvement over nothing
or having to load something through JOSM for some glancing by area...
On Jul 3, 2014 6:51 AM, "Peter Wendorff"  wrote:

> Hi,
> I agree that the render-all-approach is useful in some cases, but - on
> which ones?
> In low zoom levels (z0-15) it tends to get overwhelmingly cluttered by
> features while on the other hand lots of them have to be dropped at
> random because of geometric restrictions - there's limited space on the
> canvas, and nothing will change that.
>
> In high zoom levels I would like to see something like that, but usually
> that's beyond z18, probably even beyond z19.
>
> Perhaps we shouldn't cry to get osmarender back but instead to get a
> vector rendering solution for high zoom levels, rendering in the browser
> and allowing the user to define what should be rendered and what should
> not. I'm not entirely sure how that would look like, but a long list
> (with filtering capability) of items to show or hide might be a starting
> point, and if you really want you could check all and get your unusable
> cluttered map - but you may be able to specify exactly what you want to
> see rendered  (and, who knows, perhaps even how it's diplayed).
>
> regards
> Peter
>
> Am 23.06.2014 13:56, schrieb SomeoneElse:
> > There have been lots of changes to the "standard" style sheet recently
> > (e.g. [1]).  The resulting map looks much nicer (farmland and other
> > landuse much less glaring, names that really make no sense to be shown
> > on a general map aren't).
> >
> > There have however been some unintended consequences of the changes.  A
> > number of abandoned railways near me were edited from "abandoned" to
> > "disused"; I'm guessing that it might be because of the recent changes.
> > Changeset comments along the lines of "changed to X so that it renders"
> > and "I know we're not supposed to tag for the renderer but what's the
> > point in mapping a feature which then doesn't appear" are relatively
> > common.
> >
> > The question, I suspect is what is the "Standard" style on the OSM
> > website for?  It used to be "for mappers, but a nice rendering; one that
> > you might actually use as a punter too".  Back when Osmarender [3]
> > existed, that was the "if you want to see everything render, look at the
> > instead" option.  The removal of features (see [2]) that people actually
> > use means that the Standard style isn't really "for mappers" any more -
> > it's a nice (very nice, actually) generic map style, but not one that
> > you can use to make sure that what you've mapped is "technically
> > correct" (e.g. joined polygons up properly).
> >
> > So, where's the replacement for Osmarender?  I'm sure that someone,
> > somewhere, will have created a CartoCSS style file that is much closer
> > to "show everything" than openstreetmap-carto currently is. Currently
> > for my own use I'm still using the standard style but at database update
> > adding back in some of the recent removals (see [4] - it also does some
> > England and Wales rights-of-way stuff). However, as the "standard" style
> > becomes "nicer" it's becoming increasingly clear that it's not the best
> > place to start from.  The question is, what is?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-June/069959.html
> >
> > [2] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
> >
> > [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmarender
> >
> > [4]
> >
> https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Peter Wendorff]

Hi,
I agree that the render-all-approach is useful in some cases, but - on
which ones?
In low zoom levels (z0-15) it tends to get overwhelmingly cluttered by
features while on the other hand lots of them have to be dropped at
random because of geometric restrictions - there's limited space on the
canvas, and nothing will change that.

In high zoom levels I would like to see something like that, but usually
that's beyond z18, probably even beyond z19.

Perhaps we shouldn't cry to get osmarender back but instead to get a
vector rendering solution for high zoom levels, rendering in the browser
and allowing the user to define what should be rendered and what should
not. I'm not entirely sure how that would look like, but a long list
(with filtering capability) of items to show or hide might be a starting
point, and if you really want you could check all and get your unusable
cluttered map - but you may be able to specify exactly what you want to
see rendered  (and, who knows, perhaps even how it's diplayed).

regards
Peter

Am 23.06.2014 13:56, schrieb SomeoneElse:
> There have been lots of changes to the "standard" style sheet recently
> (e.g. [1]).  The resulting map looks much nicer (farmland and other
> landuse much less glaring, names that really make no sense to be shown
> on a general map aren't).
> 
> There have however been some unintended consequences of the changes.  A
> number of abandoned railways near me were edited from "abandoned" to
> "disused"; I'm guessing that it might be because of the recent changes. 
> Changeset comments along the lines of "changed to X so that it renders"
> and "I know we're not supposed to tag for the renderer but what's the
> point in mapping a feature which then doesn't appear" are relatively
> common.
> 
> The question, I suspect is what is the "Standard" style on the OSM
> website for?  It used to be "for mappers, but a nice rendering; one that
> you might actually use as a punter too".  Back when Osmarender [3]
> existed, that was the "if you want to see everything render, look at the
> instead" option.  The removal of features (see [2]) that people actually
> use means that the Standard style isn't really "for mappers" any more -
> it's a nice (very nice, actually) generic map style, but not one that
> you can use to make sure that what you've mapped is "technically
> correct" (e.g. joined polygons up properly).
> 
> So, where's the replacement for Osmarender?  I'm sure that someone,
> somewhere, will have created a CartoCSS style file that is much closer
> to "show everything" than openstreetmap-carto currently is. Currently
> for my own use I'm still using the standard style but at database update
> adding back in some of the recent removals (see [4] - it also does some
> England and Wales rights-of-way stuff). However, as the "standard" style
> becomes "nicer" it's becoming increasingly clear that it's not the best
> place to start from.  The question is, what is?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Andy
> 
> [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-June/069959.html
> 
> [2] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
> 
> [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmarender
> 
> [4]
> https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Russ Nelson]

Elena ``of Valhalla'' writes:
 > The right solution to this kind of complaint is to help them set up 
 > their own thematic map.

No. The right solution is to stop having "a map". We need to bring
opencyclemap, openrailwaymap, openpistemap, and opencanalmap back into
the fold, and offer all of them as "OpenStreetMaps, pick one." That
way, we directly attack the misconception that OpenStreetMap is a map
(yes, yes, I know, we're rather misnamed -- OpenGeodata is probably a
better name.)

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Philip Barnes]

On Thu, 2014-06-26 at 13:52 +0200, malenki wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:00:32 +0100,
> Philip Barnes wrote:
> 
> > Abandoned railways are also potential footpaths, cycleways, again not
> > showing them makes locating potential useful rights of way claims more
> > difficult.
> 
> I'd assume that mappers who have surveyed the abandoned railways would
> add highway=path/footway to it if appropriate.
> 
> 
They do not necessarily have legal access at that stage, or are
seriously overgrown but are potential additions to the ROW network.
Highway authorities will often consult user groups on ROW improvements,
old railways are often a good and non-contravercial additions. 

Embankments and low bridges are also significant landmarks that are
important for navigation in the same way as power lines.

ROW = Rights of way.

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[malenki]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:00:32 +0100,
Philip Barnes wrote:

> Abandoned railways are also potential footpaths, cycleways, again not
> showing them makes locating potential useful rights of way claims more
> difficult.

I'd assume that mappers who have surveyed the abandoned railways would
add highway=path/footway to it if appropriate.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 23:14 -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
> The only complaints I see about the standard map are the ones coming
> from railfans who want to see the abandoned railroads put back. Can we
> not admit to error? Y'all should try it -- it puts hair on your chest
> and makes your boobs bigger (those would be gender-specific
> enhancements. I'll let you figure out which gender wants which).
> -russ
> 
Not specifically rail fans, dismantled railways are often significant
features, the embankments, cuttings and bridges are still in place. We
now have height restrictions on roads with no bridge rendered to give
the map user a clue as to why the restriction is there. An example here,
http://goo.gl/maps/dB8B6

Where railways no longer exist they should be correctly tagged as
historic, the change to rendering means that there is now less chance
that these errors will be fixed as nobody will spot the railway passing
through a retail park.

Abandoned railways are also potential footpaths, cycleways, again not
showing them makes locating potential useful rights of way claims more
difficult.

My tupence worth.
Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-06-24 12:46 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> Would adding an hstore-column be an option for the main rendering db? This
> would give us all the flexibility we are currently missing because of
> missing keys, but will have some performance penalty.



maybe it could be an alternative to LUA-transform some of the tags on
import, e.g. golf=rough to natural=scrub or golf=bunker to natural=beach
and surface=sand?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-06-24 11:37 GMT+02:00 Michael Kugelmann :

> And if it is not rendered please add a feature request (or better submit a
> patch).



FWIW, I am not a golf player, but as this is a returning issue decided to
create a ticket nonetheless to avoid tagging for the renderer:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/661

The problem here is (like often) that rendering these requires the "golf"
key in the database, which is currently not available, so this is nothing
to be done right away (submitting a patch will not change this in the short
term). If there is interest in importing the key I promise to create a rule
set proposal for it.

Would adding an hstore-column be an option for the main rendering db? This
would give us all the flexibility we are currently missing because of
missing keys, but will have some performance penalty.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Elena ``of Valhalla'']

On 2014-06-23 at 23:14:36 -0400, Russ Nelson wrote:
> The only complaints I see about the standard map are the ones coming
> from railfans who want to see the abandoned railroads put back. Can we
> not admit to error? 

Rendering a feature because its fans complain loud enough doesn't sound 
like a good idea, it sounds like a bad precedent which will lead 
the fans of other features to complain more often.

The right solution to this kind of complaint is to help them set up 
their own thematic map.

If the complaints came from non-fans it would be a different issue: 
if e.g. people who are not sundial nerds start to ask for sundials to be 
rendered because they are useful landmarks, this is a good reason to
consider rendering sundials, even if they are not commonly seen 
on other maps (afaik).

Returning to the main topic of this thread: I also miss the render 
everything even if it looks like crap approach of the old tiles@home, 
but I wonder if it is still possibile to have a map like that 
and still be readable: back then there was much less data on OSM, 
nowadays I suspect that it would become too clobbered even 
as a debug tool.

-- 
Elena ``of Valhalla''

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Michael Kugelmann]

Am 24.06.2014 10:57, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:


this obviously belongs to [tagging],

[...]
Please check the detailed description on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course
how to tag e.g. bunkers (also by surface!)

And if it is not rendered please add a feature request (or better submit 
a patch).



Generally speaking:
by inventing the "new render rules"   Andy added a way that anybody can 
participate in the creation of the style sheet. Why don't you take this 
chance?



Cheers,
Michael.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-06-24 9:53 GMT+02:00 Ed Loach :

> You're trolling, yes? golf=bunker still isn't rendered, e.g.
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/133025922
> (Perhaps of interest is this related blog post by rweait from August
> 2009
> http://weait.com/content/golf-course-style-openstreetmap
> )
>
> Or are you suggesting I need to add natural=sand (man_made=sand
> would be more appropriate) until golf=bunker itself is rendered?
>



this obviously belongs to [tagging], still neither natural=sand nor
man_made=sand seem appropriate tags (man_made being used predominantly for
technical installations and natural for topographic features). If you want
to add something more generic I'd suggest landcover=sand and/or
surface=sand --- not necessarily only _until_ golf=bunker is rendered, this
could remain also after it will be rendered (if ever).

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Ed Loach]

Michael wrote:

> This reminds me to the "good old times" in OSM. Can anybody
> remember
> that the sand bunkers on some golf courses had beeen tagged as
> "natural
> = beach" to get them rendered?   :-(
> Not everything was good in good old times...

You're trolling, yes? golf=bunker still isn't rendered, e.g.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/133025922
(Perhaps of interest is this related blog post by rweait from August
2009
http://weait.com/content/golf-course-style-openstreetmap
)

Or are you suggesting I need to add natural=sand (man_made=sand
would be more appropriate) until golf=bunker itself is rendered?

Ed


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Minh Nguyen]

On 2014-06-23 20:14, Russ Nelson wrote:

The only complaints I see about the standard map are the ones coming
from railfans who want to see the abandoned railroads put back.


I'm still holding my breath for landuse labels at z14... [1]

[1] 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/351#issuecomment-36734692


--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Russ Nelson]

On the other hand (reaching into my economist's bag of hands), I'm not
friends with too many hydrantfans, churchfans, mountaintopfans,
islandfans, or wetlandfans. So maybe I have a biased view. How many
complaints are we getting from them, now that their favorite feature
is no longer visible?

I take that back. Obviously the islandfans have successfully been able
to put their foot down, and keep them rendered at Z=15 and higher. And
of course it's been years since it was OpenChurchMap.org, so it's
unlikely that the churchanistas are still complaining. Maybe if all
the religionists could cooperate with each other, they could populate
OpenChurchMap.org. I'm not holding my breadth. Or my heighth. How come
breadth ends in an H, but height does not? I blame the English for
English.

Russ Nelson writes:
 > The only complaints I see about the standard map are the ones coming
 > from railfans who want to see the abandoned railroads put back. Can we
 > not admit to error? Y'all should try it -- it puts hair on your chest
 > and makes your boobs bigger (those would be gender-specific
 > enhancements. I'll let you figure out which gender wants which).
 > -russ
 > 
 > SomeoneElse writes:
 >  > There have been lots of changes to the "standard" style sheet recently 
 >  > (e.g. [1]).  The resulting map looks much nicer (farmland and other 
 >  > landuse much less glaring, names that really make no sense to be shown 
 >  > on a general map aren't).
 >  > 
 >  > There have however been some unintended consequences of the changes.  A 
 >  > number of abandoned railways near me were edited from "abandoned" to 
 >  > "disused"; I'm guessing that it might be because of the recent changes.  
 >  > Changeset comments along the lines of "changed to X so that it renders" 
 >  > and "I know we're not supposed to tag for the renderer but what's the 
 >  > point in mapping a feature which then doesn't appear" are relatively 
 > common.
 >  > 
 >  > The question, I suspect is what is the "Standard" style on the OSM 
 >  > website for?  It used to be "for mappers, but a nice rendering; one that 
 >  > you might actually use as a punter too".  Back when Osmarender [3] 
 >  > existed, that was the "if you want to see everything render, look at the 
 >  > instead" option.  The removal of features (see [2]) that people actually 
 >  > use means that the Standard style isn't really "for mappers" any more - 
 >  > it's a nice (very nice, actually) generic map style, but not one that 
 >  > you can use to make sure that what you've mapped is "technically 
 >  > correct" (e.g. joined polygons up properly).
 >  > 
 >  > So, where's the replacement for Osmarender?  I'm sure that someone, 
 >  > somewhere, will have created a CartoCSS style file that is much closer 
 >  > to "show everything" than openstreetmap-carto currently is. Currently 
 >  > for my own use I'm still using the standard style but at database update 
 >  > adding back in some of the recent removals (see [4] - it also does some 
 >  > England and Wales rights-of-way stuff). However, as the "standard" style 
 >  > becomes "nicer" it's becoming increasingly clear that it's not the best 
 >  > place to start from.  The question is, what is?
 >  > 
 >  > Cheers,
 >  > 
 >  > Andy
 >  > 
 >  > [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-June/069959.html
 >  > 
 >  > [2] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
 >  > 
 >  > [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmarender
 >  > 
 >  > [4] 
 >  > https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > ___
 >  > 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] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Russ Nelson]

The only complaints I see about the standard map are the ones coming
from railfans who want to see the abandoned railroads put back. Can we
not admit to error? Y'all should try it -- it puts hair on your chest
and makes your boobs bigger (those would be gender-specific
enhancements. I'll let you figure out which gender wants which).
-russ

SomeoneElse writes:
 > There have been lots of changes to the "standard" style sheet recently 
 > (e.g. [1]).  The resulting map looks much nicer (farmland and other 
 > landuse much less glaring, names that really make no sense to be shown 
 > on a general map aren't).
 > 
 > There have however been some unintended consequences of the changes.  A 
 > number of abandoned railways near me were edited from "abandoned" to 
 > "disused"; I'm guessing that it might be because of the recent changes.  
 > Changeset comments along the lines of "changed to X so that it renders" 
 > and "I know we're not supposed to tag for the renderer but what's the 
 > point in mapping a feature which then doesn't appear" are relatively common.
 > 
 > The question, I suspect is what is the "Standard" style on the OSM 
 > website for?  It used to be "for mappers, but a nice rendering; one that 
 > you might actually use as a punter too".  Back when Osmarender [3] 
 > existed, that was the "if you want to see everything render, look at the 
 > instead" option.  The removal of features (see [2]) that people actually 
 > use means that the Standard style isn't really "for mappers" any more - 
 > it's a nice (very nice, actually) generic map style, but not one that 
 > you can use to make sure that what you've mapped is "technically 
 > correct" (e.g. joined polygons up properly).
 > 
 > So, where's the replacement for Osmarender?  I'm sure that someone, 
 > somewhere, will have created a CartoCSS style file that is much closer 
 > to "show everything" than openstreetmap-carto currently is. Currently 
 > for my own use I'm still using the standard style but at database update 
 > adding back in some of the recent removals (see [4] - it also does some 
 > England and Wales rights-of-way stuff). However, as the "standard" style 
 > becomes "nicer" it's becoming increasingly clear that it's not the best 
 > place to start from.  The question is, what is?
 > 
 > Cheers,
 > 
 > Andy
 > 
 > [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-June/069959.html
 > 
 > [2] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
 > 
 > [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmarender
 > 
 > [4] 
 > https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua
 > 
 > 
 > ___
 > 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] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Rob Nickerson]

Andy,

I think there is a lot of positives in the new rendering as well. I for one
am delighted to see some life back in the "standard" map style, this way
new tags can be (and have been) added to the rendering rules. So it's a mix
- some things are improved, some things are added, and a few things get
removed.

As for a "show it all map", I guess this is where Vector Tiles may help in
the future. Meanwhile we have a lot of rendering options available, it's
also easier than ever to create your own, and tools like Overpass Turbo
allow you to on-the-fly checks of the data.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[yvecai]

However this off-topic illustrates one point: topic map are good to show 
topical features: you can fill bugs that the maintainer will have a 
pleasure to fix :)


Andy, you are well placed to know that rendering a particular topic well 
requires a good understanding of the tagging scheme, but also the habits 
of those contributors mapping this particular interest of them.


I'm not sure a map showing everything is a solution today, and even less 
sure somebody could find a sustained interest in maintaining one.


Also, tools like Overpass or Umap now make things easier.

Yves


On 23.06.2014 19:13, SomeoneElse wrote:

Yves wrote:

Or directed them toward Openrailwaymap ?


I'd have suggested that (in fact it's the first place I looked), had 
any of the renderings there been at all useful.  There do seem to have 
been some odd choices in terms of what gets rendered and what 
doesn't.  Here's an area not far from me that shows the problem:


http://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=en&lat=53.18464174858166&lon=-1.3017082214355469&zoom=13&style=standard 



That doesn't mean that openrailwaymap is "wrong"; just that it's not a 
solution to this particular problem.


And of course, my original question was not just about railways; that 
was just an example.


Cheers,

Andy


___
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] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Michael Kugelmann]

on 23.06.2014 13:56, SomeoneElse wrote:
A number of abandoned railways near me were edited from "abandoned" to 
"disused"; I'm guessing that it might be because of the recent 
changes.  Changeset comments along the lines of "changed to X so that 
it renders" and "I know we're not supposed to tag for the renderer but 
what's the point in mapping a feature which then doesn't appear" are 
relatively common.
This reminds me to the "good old times" in OSM. Can anyybody remember 
that the sand bunkers on some golf courses had beeen tagged as "natural 
= beach" to get them rendered?   :-(

Not everything was good in good old times...


Cheers,
Michael.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[SomeoneElse]

Yves wrote:

Or directed them toward Openrailwaymap ?


I'd have suggested that (in fact it's the first place I looked), had any 
of the renderings there been at all useful.  There do seem to have been 
some odd choices in terms of what gets rendered and what doesn't.  
Here's an area not far from me that shows the problem:


http://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=en&lat=53.18464174858166&lon=-1.3017082214355469&zoom=13&style=standard

That doesn't mean that openrailwaymap is "wrong"; just that it's not a 
solution to this particular problem.


And of course, my original question was not just about railways; that 
was just an example.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[SomeoneElse]

Andrew Hain wrote:

Have you talked to them or reverted their edits?


Re the disused railway, I did talk to the person who changed it - and 
attached a photo (which showed it to be very much abandoned).


Re the most recent time that I saw "I know we shouldn't tag for the 
renderer but" in changeset comments no - because what they went with 
(landuse=quarry I think) was IMHO correct - quarries near where I live 
come into and go out of use as demand and prices change.  A quarry is 
still a big hole in the ground even if nothing is currently being extracted.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Yves]

Or directed them toward Openrailwaymap ?
I don't think a show-them-all map makes sense these days. Everybody should be 
able to find a map that fits his / her needs.
Yves

On 23 juin 2014 18:33:01 UTC+02:00, Andrew Hain  
wrote:
>SomeoneElse  mail.atownsend.org.uk> writes:
>
>> There have however been some unintended consequences of the changes. 
>A 
>> number of abandoned railways near me were edited from "abandoned" to 
>> "disused"; I'm guessing that it might be because of the recent
>changes.  
>> Changeset comments along the lines of "changed to X so that it
>renders" 
>> and "I know we're not supposed to tag for the renderer but what's the
>
>> point in mapping a feature which then doesn't appear" are relatively 
>common.
>
>Have you talked to them or reverted their edits?
>
>--
>Andrew
>
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-- 
Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Andrew Hain]

SomeoneElse  mail.atownsend.org.uk> writes:

> There have however been some unintended consequences of the changes.  A 
> number of abandoned railways near me were edited from "abandoned" to 
> "disused"; I'm guessing that it might be because of the recent changes.  
> Changeset comments along the lines of "changed to X so that it renders" 
> and "I know we're not supposed to tag for the renderer but what's the 
> point in mapping a feature which then doesn't appear" are relatively 
common.

Have you talked to them or reverted their edits?

--
Andrew


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