I second this. Even some form of SVG would be an improvement over nothing or having to load something through JOSM for some glancing by area... On Jul 3, 2014 6:51 AM, "Peter Wendorff" <wendo...@uni-paderborn.de> wrote:
> Hi, > I agree that the render-all-approach is useful in some cases, but - on > which ones? > In low zoom levels (z0-15) it tends to get overwhelmingly cluttered by > features while on the other hand lots of them have to be dropped at > random because of geometric restrictions - there's limited space on the > canvas, and nothing will change that. > > In high zoom levels I would like to see something like that, but usually > that's beyond z18, probably even beyond z19. > > Perhaps we shouldn't cry to get osmarender back but instead to get a > vector rendering solution for high zoom levels, rendering in the browser > and allowing the user to define what should be rendered and what should > not. I'm not entirely sure how that would look like, but a long list > (with filtering capability) of items to show or hide might be a starting > point, and if you really want you could check all and get your unusable > cluttered map - but you may be able to specify exactly what you want to > see rendered (and, who knows, perhaps even how it's diplayed). > > regards > Peter > > Am 23.06.2014 13:56, schrieb SomeoneElse: > > 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
