stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> writes: > As I mentioned to Doug I exchanged a couple of emails with > user:jeisenberg (a principal contributor to Carto) about what was > going on with some examples of this, and Mr. Eisenberg explained to me > (in short) that it is a complicated ordering (or re-ordering) of > layers issue, both Doug and I continue to scratch our heads about what > "best practice" might be here. (For "heavily wooded residential" > polygons, which are frequent in Northern California). While Doug and > I both tend towards the preference of the "superimposed look," it is > not always simple to achieve, due to complexities in the renderer and > data/tagging dependencies. And, Doug and I are certainly aware of > "don't code for the renderer." However, given that Doug and I are > fairly certain that others have noticed this, but aren't certain that > others know what best to do (we don't, either), we ask the wider > community "what do you think?" and "What are best practices here?"
Agreed this is really hard. First, I'm going to assume that polygons for landuse=residential do or are intended to align with property boundaries. I'm also going to assume that natural=wood aligns with the actual location of trees, which is (in mass) almost always not aligned with property boundaries. I have thought it an error to have natural=wood tagged on a polygon that shows conservation land, as the adjacent non-conservation land almost always similarly has trees (around me). I would suggest that perhaps a "this land has some trees" landcover tag (cover != use, strongly agreed) may make sense. I am not sure you are talking about this, or not. I find natural=wood to imply that the land has none to very little built structures, mostly trees, and the usual understory plants. I would definitely not want to use this tag on an landuse=residential area with houses, but I might use it on the rear parts of a housing area that are basically trees. I also would not want to stop at the subdivision line. The basic problem here is that it's pretty straightforward to render a map that primarily shows landuse, and it's pretty straightforward to render a map tha primarily shows landcover. What carto does, and what a lot of people want, is a way to show both of them. I would suggest that if tagging heroics are needed there is something suboptimal in the renderer. I think renderers probably need fancier code to choose which of landuse/landcover to emphasisize depending on local scale. Or a deconfliction of symbology. To have a way forward, I think we need a coherent design for a style (not code, but an articulation of how it ought to work, first) that uses some kind of symbology for landuse and some other kind for landcover. I naively lean to solid fill, tending to lighter shades, for landuse, and stipple patterns for landcover. I think this is what you are suggesting. It is interesting to think about the 80s USGS topo maps, and surely also interesting to look at other traditional maps for inspiration. The USGS ones were primarily land cover and very little landuse. But they did have a gray "house omission tint" in built-up areas, which I'd say is "this area has many buildings" and is sort of landcover, even though it's a proxy for landuse. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
