Thanks for the advice, Mateusz. I'll think about this some more, and if it still seems like a good idea I'll propose it on github. Andy Townsend gave me the same advice.
Best regards - doug On 1/7/2018 4:06 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > For start: the best place to propose improvements to default map > style is to propose it at > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto > > In other places it is highly unusual that somebody involved in > development map style will notice it and on issue tracker > ( https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues ) proposed > ideas stay under implementation or rejection so nothing is missed > (though somebody still need to implement it), > > > On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 19:58:54 +0000 > Doug Hembry <doughem...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> You are right that I raised the issue of the green fill for >> leisure=park because it is being used for large, wild protected >> lands > That is clearly incorrect tagging. But I guess that these people would > just switch to leisure=pitch or leisure=garden if > rendering for leisure=park would be removed. > >> I'm not sure what you meant about the national_park borders... I'm >> sorry. Could you clarify? > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=national%20park?uselang=en > is already rendered so I am curious why people still tag for renderer > and use leisure=park in places that are something completely diffferent. > Typically it stops when correct tagging is also displayed. > >> And it's really no big inconvenience for mappers to >> add landuse=grass (or whatever) to their definition of a small urban >> park. > Note that in my experience (limited to Europe) it is very unusual for > entire park to have a single land cover (either grass or trees or > anything else) and it is vastly simpler to draw park area than many > landcover=* or landuse=* areas. > > >> On the other hand, one could argue that since the natural=*, >> landcover=* (and even landuse=*) tags exist, why should we be >> providing another, special way of fill-coloring parks (even small >> urban parks)? > Primarily - to display something useful also in areas that are not fully > mapped (what is quite rare). > >> would be >> to drop rendering for "boundary=national_park" and >> "leisure=nature_reserve" as well > I would not expect it to happen soon. Especially as this tagging is not > terrible and is simpler than proposed new one and widely used. > > Completely broken waterway=wadi tag still haunts us (see > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1365 ) for > links to gory details. > . > _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
