> On Mar 10, 2015, at 12:49 AM, Matthijs Melissen <i...@matthijsmelissen.nl> > wrote: > > On 9 March 2015 at 15:26, SomeoneElse <li...@atownsend.org.uk> wrote: >> To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this issue >> and it was summarily closed: >> >> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/641 > > That was not a pull request, but a bug report, and it happened to be a > duplicate bug report so it was closed with a reference to the earlier > bug report. > > We have decided not to render abandoned railways, but we haven't taken > a decision on how to render standalone/abandoned bridges. > > — Matthijs >
When I complained about he strong black of power line renderings, and the response was that that the lines offer orientation guidance in rural areas, so their inclusion and high prominence was justified. Actual physical bridges - which may offer the only way across a ravine, or a landmark to where you are on a river sounds like a similar justification - so rendering abandoned, yet physically existing bridges seems like exactly the kind of thing that would be included - especially since their inclusion would offer no clutter or distraction at levels where other items would cause quite a lot of visual clutter for similar orinentation benefit. There is an amazing amount of abandoned and bypassed bridges here in Japan - way more than in America, especially in rural areas. Many people see the usefulness of the -carto default rendering as the end goal of their work, right or wrong - there’s very few other ways a simple tagger can interact with their input to OSM, so balancing the data shown and the clarity of the map is very difficult - but not rendering actually existing bridges seems wholly incorrect. Javbw _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
