Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
Andy Townsend wrote: (6) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SomeoneElse/Your_tiles_from_osm.org Interesting hack Andy, thanks 2015-07-14 6:18 GMT+01:00 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: Unfortunately I suspect what I'd choose works well for a certain type of countryside, but less well for town centres [...] so I suspect that we'd soon hit the same sort of issues as the standard style has You can fairly easily adapt rendering rules for rural areas vs towns. See for example http://cycle.travel/map?lat=51.791lon=-1.5087zoom=13 : pubs aren't shown in towns at z13 (Witney), but are in villages (Minster Lovell, Ducklington). At z16 they're shown in towns but not cities. It doesn't play nicely with minutely updates, but would we need that for a UK map? I'd have thought a daily reimport - very feasible on a UK-sized extract - would be enough. Sounds good. Mind if I ask how it is done? (i.e. rendering rules for rural vs town) - is it simply two different stylesheets, plus a list of specified boundaries, or something responsive to POI density, or...? If there's a blurb online somewhere that gives a hint I'd be interested. (Sorry if I'm taking this off-topic, not sure.) Dan ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
Dan S wrote:
Sounds good. Mind if I ask how it is done? (i.e. rendering rules
for rural vs town)
Post-import, I run a couple of queries along the lines of
UPDATE planet_osm_point SET urban=true FROM built_up_areas WHERE
ST_Contains(built_up_areas.geom,way)
using a pre-existing 'built_up_areas' table which contains polygons of,
well, built-up areas. I use OS Open Data for the polygons but you could no
doubt construct them from OSM landuse if that floats your boat.
The Mapnik stylesheet queries then simply respond to that column:
#poi[type='pub'][urban=true][zoom=15],
#poi[type='pub'][urban=false][zoom=13] {
...rendering rules...
}
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Thrapston-viaduct-tp5849991p5850090.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
On 13/07/2015 18:14, Andy Allan wrote: On 13 July 2015 at 14:34, Mike Evans mi...@saxicola.co.uk wrote: It seems to me that the viaduct and the railway are two separate entities and should mapped as such. Just because an abandoned railway happens to run on the top of the viaduct is irrelevant in my opinion. Exactly. If there was a massive viaduct that used to carry power cables, it should be shown since it's a massive sodding viaduct, not because there used to be some cables on it. The same goes for massive trenches in the ground (i.e. cuttings) and enormous embankments. This. From a general purpose mapping perspective, if you can see it (and it's big enough to be noteworthy) then it should be mapped, irrespective of its current or former purpose. Usage is a separate and orthogonal consideration. Whether a bridge, for example, is used for a road, a railway, a footbridge or even has no current use will affect the iconography and colours applied to it. But it doesn't affect the fact that it's there, and therefore should not affect the question of whether it appears on the map in the first place. Mark -- http://www.markgoodge.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
Actually creating built-up areas from OSM data is fraught with problems:
the basic one, being that OSM landuse/landcover is too fine-grained for
identifying built-up areas. This is one of the examples in my category of
'emergent data': data which is sort of there, but is actually quite hard to
create from the way it's mapped in OSM at the moment. Generally, I believe
if people want such data they should add it to OSM, rather than expect
people to do complex data wrangling which may not work: an analogy might be
streets mapped as areas, the ways are still needed.
Obviously there are other issues::
- Incomplete data (easy to fix, map it).
- Landuse categories which are typically urban in non-urban situations
(various kinds of industrial, extensive grounds of private schools etc).
- Little gaps in well-mapped urban fabric (could be filled by a step of
positive negative buffering).
The Heidelberg folk tried using data mining (Rapid Miner) to identify urban
areas some time ago: clusters of residential roads, lower speed limits,
lit=yes, sidewalk=both, and probably a few others are the types of tags
which could be used.
In many ways built-up areas are actually more useful than many of the
landuse/landcover categories we already use : at least for more general
applications, such as the more sophisticated cartography discussed here.
Jerry
On 14 July 2015 at 09:36, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Dan S wrote:
Sounds good. Mind if I ask how it is done? (i.e. rendering rules
for rural vs town)
Post-import, I run a couple of queries along the lines of
UPDATE planet_osm_point SET urban=true FROM built_up_areas WHERE
ST_Contains(built_up_areas.geom,way)
using a pre-existing 'built_up_areas' table which contains polygons of,
well, built-up areas. I use OS Open Data for the polygons but you could no
doubt construct them from OSM landuse if that floats your boat.
The Mapnik stylesheet queries then simply respond to that column:
#poi[type='pub'][urban=true][zoom=15],
#poi[type='pub'][urban=false][zoom=13] {
...rendering rules...
}
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Thrapston-viaduct-tp5849991p5850090.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
On 13 July 2015 at 08:53, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: The significant (and massive) disused railway viaduct near Thrapston: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264894970 does not render on our default map However, this viaduct of comparable size, does: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4929040 The only significant difference seems to be that the latter is tagged: railway=disused rather than abandoned. In actual fact, unused would be more appropriate, as it was never used. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
We could take that line of thought further. A viaduct/bridge etc actually has nothing to do with a railway per se. It’s a structural object in its own right. What we should be doing is rendering the bridge structure first and then if appropriate putting a way over the top if the structure is in use in some way - whether original railway (current or disused), unofficial footpath or designated cycleway etc. Vauxhall/Bordesley Viaduct in Birmingham was built to carry a railway over it but was never used because the rail connection was never made. Its currently tagged as railway=disused but that’s not really true. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Andy Townsend [mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com] Sent: 14 July 2015 21:31 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct On 14/07/2015 20:24, Andy Mabbett wrote: The only significant difference seems to be that the latter is tagged: railway=disused rather than abandoned. In actual fact, unused would be more appropriate, as it was never used. It looks like it was recently changed from abandoned to disused. Call me a cynic, but I wonder if that was someone simply tagging for the renderer? If there are no in-situ rails, it's not disused. Cheers, Andy. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4821 / Virus Database: 4365/10222 - Release Date: 07/13/15 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
Actually it was pmailkey who changed the tags on that structure a few months back and did other incorrect changes to what's left of the viaduct. I've now reverted. -Original Message- From: Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com] Sent: 14 July 2015 22:24 To: 'Andy Townsend'; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct We could take that line of thought further. A viaduct/bridge etc actually has nothing to do with a railway per se. It’s a structural object in its own right. What we should be doing is rendering the bridge structure first and then if appropriate putting a way over the top if the structure is in use in some way - whether original railway (current or disused), unofficial footpath or designated cycleway etc. Vauxhall/Bordesley Viaduct in Birmingham was built to carry a railway over it but was never used because the rail connection was never made. Its currently tagged as railway=disused but that’s not really true. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Andy Townsend [mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com] Sent: 14 July 2015 21:31 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct On 14/07/2015 20:24, Andy Mabbett wrote: The only significant difference seems to be that the latter is tagged: railway=disused rather than abandoned. In actual fact, unused would be more appropriate, as it was never used. It looks like it was recently changed from abandoned to disused. Call me a cynic, but I wonder if that was someone simply tagging for the renderer? If there are no in-situ rails, it's not disused. Cheers, Andy. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4821 / Virus Database: 4365/10222 - Release Date: 07/13/15 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4821 / Virus Database: 4365/10222 - Release Date: 07/13/15 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Andy Robinson wrote:
I've now reverted.
I fear that unless the render starts rendering
bridge={viaduct,yes,etc} such re-tagging is likely to continue---or
at least highway=track; access=private getting added to more things.
Is there a suggested plan for how we can get the missing
viaducts/tunnels onto the default rendering to avoid future
tagging for the renderer diff noise?
-Paul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFVpap0c444tukM+iQRAmI0AJ9fwH3ip15FHrJ6pjOCTkKDoqOkPQCfXyQH
OHlSp7llF+uDUlZHAa+5m2k=
=LA/A
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
Bridges and other significant remaining infrastructure of railways tagged as railway=abandoned ceased to be rendered on the Standard rendering some time ago. There was a degree of dissension with this decision: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542. Certainly I recall a few grumps to that effect on the osm-gb IRC channel: not least because of the potential value of such routes for walkers cyclists. Jerry On 13 July 2015 at 08:53, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: The significant (and massive) disused railway viaduct near Thrapston: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264894970 does not render on our default map: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.3914/-0.5433 despite being a significant and very visible landmark: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_opulentfish/2870819874/ I don't want fudge things to just tag for the renderer, but is there a relevant tag missing, or should we change the rendering styles to show such objects? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 10:25 +0100, SK53 wrote: Bridges and other significant remaining infrastructure of railways tagged as railway=abandoned ceased to be rendered on the Standard rendering some time ago. There was a degree of dissension with this decision: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542. Certainly I recall a few grumps to that effect on the osm-gb IRC channel: not least because of the potential value of such routes for walkers cyclists. I was certainly one of those, disused railways are important and very visible features in rural parts of the UK. I suspect other countries didn't suffer the stupidity of a Dr Beeching in the way we did. At the time I recall most of the arguments being about railways appearing through housing estates and the solution seemed to be to hide them rather than leave them and allow local mappers to correct the tagging. If its gone and not visible then it should be tagged historic, rather than abandoned. I think this, and blue motorways, is a good argument for why we need a UK render of the map. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 08:53:57AM +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote: The significant (and massive) disused railway viaduct near Thrapston: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264894970 does not render on our default map: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.3914/-0.5433 despite being a significant and very visible landmark: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_opulentfish/2870819874/ I started a thread about this sort of thing on the tagging list last spring: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-March/022606.html There were some rather bad tempered posts from the railway lobby:-( I *thought* that the outcome was that the problem was acknowledged and that there were moves to amend the mapnik default style to render bridges again. But nothing happened. Having stirred up a hornets' nest once, I decided to leave it. But as I said there, it was embarrasing when showing openstreet(map) to newbies to have to explain that the many significant (often low) bridges in the area carrying abandoned mining railways over roads were mapped, but not visible. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
Ah, that's a bit annoying. This is also a significant structure: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38331305 Not least as a tourist attraction for fans of the film 'The Titfield Thunderbolt' which was made along this stretch of line. It can't be too hard to the carto scheme to check railway=abandoned to see if it has sub-tags of bridge=* or embankment= etc. Cheers Dave F. On 13/07/2015 08:53, Andy Mabbett wrote: The significant (and massive) disused railway viaduct near Thrapston: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264894970 does not render on our default map: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.3914/-0.5433 despite being a significant and very visible landmark: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_opulentfish/2870819874/ I don't want fudge things to just tag for the renderer, but is there a relevant tag missing, or should we change the rendering styles to show such objects? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
On 13 July 2015 at 10:37, thomas van der veen th.vanderv...@gmail.com wrote: Hockley Viaduct near Winchester does get rendered: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/108241777#map=18/51.03628/-1.32230 but probably because there is a path on it. Would that be a workaround for you Andy? Thank you; I have no idea whether there's a path on the viaduct. I did consider building=yes -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
Hockley Viaduct near Winchester does get rendered: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/108241777#map=18/51.03628/-1.32230 but probably because there is a path on it. Would that be a workaround for you Andy? Thomas On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:25 AM, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote: Bridges and other significant remaining infrastructure of railways tagged as railway=abandoned ceased to be rendered on the Standard rendering some time ago. There was a degree of dissension with this decision: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542. Certainly I recall a few grumps to that effect on the osm-gb IRC channel: not least because of the potential value of such routes for walkers cyclists. Jerry On 13 July 2015 at 08:53, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: The significant (and massive) disused railway viaduct near Thrapston: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264894970 does not render on our default map: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.3914/-0.5433 despite being a significant and very visible landmark: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_opulentfish/2870819874/ I don't want fudge things to just tag for the renderer, but is there a relevant tag missing, or should we change the rendering styles to show such objects? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
On 13/07/2015 17:46, Paul Sladen wrote: Any UK-specific rendering is not going to solve the core issue: that large numbers of perfectly extent bridges and tunnels are not rendered; Most of these old tunnels in Nottingham are not rendered: Relation: Tunnels of Nottingham http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2446849 It would be preferable to solve the _generic_ problem that affects all countries, which solves it for everyone at once, and doesn't risk altering colour choices which are (for better or worse) part of OSM's current brand image. This neatly illustrates the problem. What gets shown on a map has to be a trade-off - some people want to see what is beneath their feet but most, I suspect, will not. OSM's standard map is currently trying to be the primary feedback mechanism to mappers but also have clear design (1). I genuinely don't believe that you can do both well in one map style. I didn't agree at the time with the decision to not render abandoned railways that are significant landscape features, but fully understood why it was made - unless we're trying to replicate the old Osmarender rendering (shows everything, but looks like an explosion in a crayon factory) something has to miss the cut. At about the time that the standard style stopped being useful to me(2) I stopped using it, so for me, Thrapston Viaduct never went away (3). With regard to what a GB map render would show, I know what I'd like to see - field boundaries, stiles, public footpaths and bridleways (and whether they're over paths or tracks) etc.(4). Public footpaths of course are just an England and Wales thing, so that's even more parochial than blue motorways and green trunk roads. Unfortunately I suspect what I'd choose works well for a certain type of countryside, but less well for town centres (which is why (2) happened in the standard style in the first place of course), so I suspect that we'd soon hit the same sort of issues as the standard style has, with one style being pulled in multiple directions. In the meantime I'll stick with (5), render them locally, and shoe-horn those tiles behind osm.org as per (6). Cheers, Andy (1) https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/b90b3b054f30f709db7e76d879cc69449206b6fd/CARTOGRAPHY.md (2) This was more about the fact that it stopped rendering footpaths clearly at a useful resolution when planning a longer walk. Also the issue as described in https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542#issuecomment-44789930 . (3) http://imgur.com/3FS8XMV (4) http://imgur.com/HL0sCsb (5) https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style and https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/openstreetmap-carto-AJT (6) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SomeoneElse/Your_tiles_from_osm.org ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
Andy Townsend wrote: OSM's standard map is currently trying to be the primary feedback mechanism to mappers but also have clear design (1). I genuinely don't believe that you can do both well in one map style. I think you can, but it requires serious cartographical chops, and - ideally - some degree of interactivity (clickable/hoverable POIs, etc.) to break out beyond the standard two dimensions. Unfortunately I suspect what I'd choose works well for a certain type of countryside, but less well for town centres [...] so I suspect that we'd soon hit the same sort of issues as the standard style has You can fairly easily adapt rendering rules for rural areas vs towns. See for example http://cycle.travel/map?lat=51.791lon=-1.5087zoom=13 : pubs aren't shown in towns at z13 (Witney), but are in villages (Minster Lovell, Ducklington). At z16 they're shown in towns but not cities. It doesn't play nicely with minutely updates, but would we need that for a UK map? I'd have thought a daily reimport - very feasible on a UK-sized extract - would be enough. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Thrapston-viaduct-tp5849991p5850081.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:40:26 +0100 ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 08:53:57AM +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote: The significant (and massive) disused railway viaduct near Thrapston: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264894970 does not render on our default map: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.3914/-0.5433 despite being a significant and very visible landmark: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_opulentfish/2870819874/ I started a thread about this sort of thing on the tagging list last spring: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-March/022606.html There were some rather bad tempered posts from the railway lobby:-( I *thought* that the outcome was that the problem was acknowledged and that there were moves to amend the mapnik default style to render bridges again. But nothing happened. Having stirred up a hornets' nest once, I decided to leave it. But as I said there, it was embarrasing when showing openstreet(map) to newbies to have to explain that the many significant (often low) bridges in the area carrying abandoned mining railways over roads were mapped, but not visible. ael It seems to me that the viaduct and the railway are two separate entities and should mapped as such. Just because an abandoned railway happens to run on the top of the viaduct is irrelevant in my opinion. Mike Evans -- Anti NSA? Use PGP. http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x00CDB13500D7AB53 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
On 13 July 2015 at 14:34, Mike Evans mi...@saxicola.co.uk wrote: It seems to me that the viaduct and the railway are two separate entities and should mapped as such. Just because an abandoned railway happens to run on the top of the viaduct is irrelevant in my opinion. Exactly. If there was a massive viaduct that used to carry power cables, it should be shown since it's a massive sodding viaduct, not because there used to be some cables on it. The same goes for massive trenches in the ground (i.e. cuttings) and enormous embankments. But unfortunately every conversation about these actually-here features gets dragged into some sort of used-to-be-a-railway-here conversation, and used-to-be-a-railway-here is not, in itself, enough of a reason to draw features on openstreetmap-carto - any more than used-to-be-a-power-cable or used-to-be-a-sewer or used-to-be-a-hedge-here or used-to-be-a-building-here. Thanks, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
On 13/07/15 16:09, Matthijs Melissen wrote: I think this, and blue motorways, is a good argument for why we need a UK render of the map. I agree a UK-specific rendering would be very useful, especially now the Default style is getting less and less UK-centric. Seconded ... While the main service has to support an international audience, just as some countries provide their own local services, the UK needs a similar more UK centric facility. -- 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-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
On 13 July 2015 at 14:13, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I think this, and blue motorways, is a good argument for why we need a UK render of the map. I agree a UK-specific rendering would be very useful, especially now the Default style is getting less and less UK-centric. -- Matthijs ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Matthijs Melissen wrote: On 13 July 2015 at 14:13, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I think this, and blue motorways, I agree a UK-specific rendering would be very useful, I fear that there is a risk the original discussion heading off-topic. Any UK-specific rendering is not going to solve the core issue: that large numbers of perfectly extent bridges and tunnels are not rendered; Most of these old tunnels in Nottingham are not rendered: Relation: Tunnels of Nottingham http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2446849 It would be preferable to solve the _generic_ problem that affects all countries, which solves it for everyone at once, and doesn't risk altering colour choices which are (for better or worse) part of OSM's current brand image. -Paul -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFVo+tyc444tukM+iQRAl71AJ9B2v7GMLNdgm0jGM5ln5hgsOHM5wCfUB8d mcneER2OS7lITGbqGh/2qB0= =SM/y -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
On Mon Jul 13 19:07:35 2015 GMT+0100, Dave F. wrote: Curious: Why don't you think blue for motorways is acceptable? Blue is the correct colour for motorways, I was referring to the coming carto change where they will become orange. Phil (trigpoint ) On 13/07/2015 13:13, Philip Barnes wrote: On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 10:25 +0100, SK53 wrote: Bridges and other significant remaining infrastructure of railways tagged as railway=abandoned ceased to be rendered on the Standard rendering some time ago. There was a degree of dissension with this decision: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542. Certainly I recall a few grumps to that effect on the osm-gb IRC channel: not least because of the potential value of such routes for walkers cyclists. I was certainly one of those, disused railways are important and very visible features in rural parts of the UK. I suspect other countries didn't suffer the stupidity of a Dr Beeching in the way we did. At the time I recall most of the arguments being about railways appearing through housing estates and the solution seemed to be to hide them rather than leave them and allow local mappers to correct the tagging. If its gone and not visible then it should be tagged historic, rather than abandoned. I think this, and blue motorways, is a good argument for why we need a UK render of the map. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct
On 13 July 2015 at 09:53, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: I don't want fudge things to just tag for the renderer, but is there a relevant tag missing, or should we change the rendering styles to show such objects? You might be interested in this PR which is currently under review: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1633 -- Matthijs ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
