(Taken from dev list, because this is wider problem.) W dniu 23.06.2018 o 10:55, Christoph Hormann pisze:
> All in all this is a good example for OSM-Carto being at a crossroads > (and having been for quite some time) between staying avant-garde and > pushing the boundaries of cartographic design and technology or being > satisfied with shuffling the options offered by the cartographic > mainstream within the technological framework used - and which, due to > Mapnik and CartoCSS being essentially unmaintained, becomes more narrow > and limiting every year. I don't see a crossroad here: being avant-garde in cartographical sense might sound cool, proud and tempting, but that comes at the high price - maintainability and team work problems. This style codebase is large and that might sound like causing a problem with maintenance, but adding more features is far less challenging than something as sophisticated as for example "new" road code - and nobody seems to be even noticing how complicated it became. Now, I'm happy with the road system look in osm-carto and it was probably worth the hassle, because it's essential element of the generic map. I also think that support for paved/unpaved roads is important, because many people seem to care about this feature for a long time (I hope Lucas can fix the performance problem, so it could be merged again). But probably some more naive rendering with simpler code would be better - it just hasn't been done. So from time to time some fine tuning might be good, but it usually means stretching the code in dangerous ways. It's already hard because of a performance factor - we push some design choices into scary giant SQL queries, but that is needed because of the growing database size and not so fast growing hardware capabilities. Your own fork looks to me like a typical prototype: expressing some interesting ideas, but not really ready for wider usage. Bolder style seems to be another prototype, with more technical than cartographical ideas, and more radical - going from zero with a new software stack. It's good to have some prototypes around, but I'm pretty sure that standard map should stay mainstream. This way or another we rely on other software, especially Mapnik. The generic style is not a place to try cartographic innovations if it makes the code even more complicated. Expressing ideas in a more or less standard way is very important, so it won't end up as too hard to maintain by a group of people, not just one clever designer. -- "My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple] _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
