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
