On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Nathan Edgars II <nerou...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Val Kartchner <val...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 15:17 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Val Kartchner <val...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Sorry to disappoint, but the 17x17 example that you gave is quite >> >> > readable. >> >> Not nearly as readable as a lone 7. >> >> >> >> > I've attached another 17x17 that is also readable. Since >> >> > readability at 17x17 is demonstrably not an issue, what is your real >> >> > objection to route-specific shields? >> >> Clutter and legibility. >> > >> > Nathan, >> > >> > So, your problem is not the size of the shields but the route-type >> > specific shields themselves? >> >> It was never the size, but the way the specific shields cram more into >> the same area. > > This happens because all of the renderers currently use ways to determine > where to place shields. When we switch over to using route relations (and > the geometry is very long) Mapnik can be much smarter about where and how > often to place shields.
I'm not talking about shield placement. I mean that the specific shield designs themselves are often cluttered. In certain states that have multiple systems (Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee) it may make sense to use a simplified version of the shields (although all of these but Tennessee's primary are already as simple as possible), but there's no reason except prettiness to prefer the Colorado shield over a simpler rectangle. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
