Hi, On 08/20/2015 03:16 AM, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > 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.
... > Should this be a new, alternative style instead? Disadvantages of offering and maintaining 2 different styles: 1. uses more disk space on tile servers 2. uses more time to render tiles (i.e. slower updates, or more hardware required) 3. harder to keep styles current when making improvements Your use case of "easily recognizable tertiary road in sparsely populated regions" is valid, but perhaps it is "niche" enough to accept that it need to be served by the main map style. I'm in favour of the change simply because it is a change. As a project, we must take great care not to ossify. Humans are inherently change averse; most people prefer "the same as yesterday" most of the time. If we allow the project to become too averse to change then we'll never see progress. (What, API 0.7 you say? Just when I had 0.6 hardcoded in my 37 applications, no way!) This is not change for change's sake (although if it were my decision, I'd even be tempted to do that just to keep us alert) - this is a well thought out suggestion and I don't see why we shouldn't, after all these years, do something else, colour-wise, for a while. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
