I must admit I never really liked the scheme where motorways get the colour of water... I also grew up with orange/yellow motorways on the map.
But I (try to) complain as little as possible. So I'm glad people are trying to come up with a 'more international' way of rendering the map. If that's even possible. On the other hand, I don't like that the difference between tertiary and unclassified/residential disappears almost completely. I don't have the time and energy to set up a rendering chain, so maybe I better shut up... Polyglot 2015-08-20 11:59 GMT+02:00 Paweł Paprota <ppa...@fastmail.fm>: > What you are proposing is basically design by committee > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee) which is rampant > everywhere in OSM and kills innovation. Everyone wants to pile on their > own cause - be it privacy (see the latest pull request on Github > regarding Gravatar for another viable contender for the Waste of Time > prize) or some weird anarchy/freedom/whatever world views. > > At the same time there's a guy (Mateusz) who took on the task of making > the default style not suck - so what do people here do? Of course, let's > discuss this to death until everyone agrees. But then you may find that > no one wants to work with you on this anymore. > > In Poland we have this often-used saying with regards to the political > or social situation (yeah, we Poles like to complain a lot!) - it sucks > but at least it's stable! > > Paweł > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015, at 11:39, Colin Smale wrote: > > > > > > > > That discussion is only a waste of time because people hope that a > consensus will magically appear. The subject of the discussion is > absolutely something which deserves air-time. I am not talking about the > specific case of abandoned railways, but about who has the right to decide > what data has no place in OSM and order its deletion. > > > > What was that famous line in Animal Farm again? > > > > --colin > > > > On 2015-08-20 10:53, Paweł Paprota wrote: > > > >> I'm taking bets on whether this thread will have more replies than the > >> "abandoned railroads" (100+ and still going strong!) and win the prize > >> for the Biggest Waste of Time in OSM for 2015. > >> > >> YES WE CAN('T) > >> > >> Paweł > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015, at 03:16, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > >>> For those that did not check on Mateusz Konieczny diary entries[1[ > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35586]], > >>> postings to this mailing list and github discussions then the Proposed > >>> Great Colour Shift might come as a surprise if it is implemented. > >>> > >>> According to the github discussion there is an "overwhelming > consensus" > >>> [2] on moving from current rainbow colour scheme for roads to a > >>> red-yellow only scheme. I am unsure of where this overwhelming > consensus > >>> formed because I never saw it on this mailing list nor on talk-dev nor > >>> on announcements, I admit to be an infrequent IRC user but I didn't > see > >>> this overwhelming consensus there and so far no one has been able to > >>> tell me where it formed or where I can find it. > >>> > >>> The design goal seems straight forward, to discontinue green and blue > >>> for roads and move to red and reddish. For this to happen the decision > >>> was made to shift current primary, secondary and tertiary colours > >>> "upwards" so primary is now the colour of secondary and secondary the > >>> colour of tertiary. Leaving tertiary white. > >>> > >>> Tertiary instead gets to be wider than residential and unclassified > >>> roads, but to be able to spot that you need to have it next to them to > >>> see which is the wider one. > >>> > >>> This one simple change of bleaching tertiary however is something I > find > >>> to be a great hindrance to mapping efforts, particularly in rural > areas > >>> where the roads are isolated and panning over the map, wether in iD or > >>> using default tiles. Currently it is easy to spot tertiary roads > snaking > >>> through valleys and over vast desert plains, they are yellow and the > non > >>> tertiary roads are white. Tertiary is significant there as it denotes > >>> the roads between the villages and towns that are often unpaved but > >>> still the most important, even the only, road. Lesser white colours > >>> imply the roads not being between larger settlements although they > could > >>> lead to hamlets. The guidelines for mapping in Africa state thus. > >>> > >>> Removing the colour from tertiary makes all mapping that much harder > to > >>> verify and quality check. Currently it is easy to see if a tertiary > road > >>> is broken with a white unclassified bridge, not so in the proposed > Great > >>> Colour Shift. > >>> > >>> Mateusz has been forthcoming with all changes and done sterling work > in > >>> displaying different areas and how they will look. But he acknowledges > >>> that this change is not beneficial everywhere on the map and now has a > >>> disclaimer: > >>> > >>> "Among potential problems are that it is now harder to recognise road > >>> type of given road, especially in situation where there is no > >>> possibility to compare it with other road types. > >>> Such significant change will be confusing for current users of this > >>> style. > >>> UK color coding of roads is well known for many people, for them a new > >>> style - even assuming that it would be intuitive for them - will be > less > >>> useful.)" > >>> > >>> > >>> The question really arises if this change is beneficial or not for the > >>> project. Many hours have gone into it and doing CartoCSS on all these > >>> zoom levels is not trivial. But this is a major shift on the front > page > >>> of our website, a blow to those who use the default tiles through uMap > >>> or similarly and depend on the UK rainbow road style and makes life > >>> harder for mappers to visually confirm the type of road. > >>> > >>> Should this be a new, alternative style instead? > >>> > >>> > >>> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35586 > >>> [2] > >>> > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1736#issuecomment-130592532 > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
