Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
I second that it should stay brown! There are way to many green objects and we don't want it confused with the grass tag. My vote would be to play around with the brown color. I certainly agree that it currently isn't the best. Cheers, ingalls On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Lennard l...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 6-1-2013 15:51, Dave F. wrote: On a related topic; if a field has a barrier tag it changes colour rendering at zoom 16: That's because having a landuse on it as well pushes it into the polygon table. It's subsequently rendered as a barrier area, ie. with the barrier=hedge fill. -- Lennard __**_ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
Green grass would be useful to differentiate between pasture and use a lighter brown for arable fields. Not much farmland is tagged at present, but I it was envisage the map becoming largely brown which will not be attractive. Most areas that are currently default background are in reality farmland. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 07/01/2013 16:24 nicholas ingalls wrote: I second that it should stay brown! There are way to many green objects and we don't want it confused with the grass tag. My vote would be to play around with the brown color. I certainly agree that it currently isn't the best. Cheers, ingalls On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Lennard l...@xs4all.nl wrote: On 6-1-2013 15:51, Dave F. wrote: On a related topic; if a field has a barrier tag it changes colour rendering at zoom 16: That's because having a landuse on it as well pushes it into the polygon table. It's subsequently rendered as a barrier area, ie. with the barrier=hedge fill. -- Lennard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
Aun Johnsen On 7. jan. 2013, at 15:48, talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: . Most areas that are currently default background are in reality farmland. Phil (trigpoint) Not true, most untagged areas are either some form of wilderness, farmlands, or on some rare occurances tagged with non-rendered tags. There are still areas of the world where most industries, residential areas and other still are largely untagged. Now, having the map taking crop and produce tags into consideration would be great, but that is maybe for a specialist map? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
On 6 January 2013 01:54, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: I prefer landuse areas to be darker than the default light gray background color in the Standard rendering. This makes it obvious (especially on LCD screens where lightness/luminance of colors vary depending on the viewing angle) that there is a tagged area there. You could make the case that the farmuse area could be lighter than it is now and/or use a different hue than brown, but don't make it as light as the default background color. +1 In the first proposal, I find it very difficult to see the difference between the farmland and the non-tagged areas. It's a bit easier in the second proposal. It could maybe be made a bit lighter, but not by that much. What's the lightness of the current landuse=residential grey? What does it look like if you match the farmland colour to that? Robert. (full text and images at https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bYm9IWXdlVHM1N1U ) Recently landuse=farmland (or simply landuse=farm) has been added to fields near me. This has led to a discussion about how the rendering 'looks' with some arguing that it doesn't look that good. I believe that this may be due to the shade of colour used – specifically the farmland 'brown' is not as luminous as the default 'grey' (actually I think it 'lightness' rather than 'luminosity' that matters to the human eye but I got very confused when searching the two). Consider the image below, showing current rendering: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bZDBTN2dZZkpDenc On the left we have farmland tagged. The 'brown' has a Lightness value of 83 percent (luminance of 85%). Compare this to the default canvas 'grey', which has 93 percent Lightness (and 93 percent luminance). Now consider the following (and please check your screen calibration at http://www.photofriday.com/calibrate.php ). I have taken the farmland 'brown' and raised it's Lightness to the same 93 percent as the default 'grey' (that is, I have left the Hue and Saturation the same): https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bSzk5NDZVMm5GZkE In this final image, I have adjusted the Hue and Saturation to provide more of a 'green': https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bZXhzdVJMVU44X2M What are your thoughts? Which do you prefer? Have I gone too 'light' with the change and should some value in-between be used instead? Am I barking up the wrong tree? -- Robert Whittaker ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
Thanks for the initial feedback. I also had one off list in support of the light green. Please keep them coming. I will play with a couple more shades this evening and post an update. Rob On Sunday, 6 January 2013, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: I prefer landuse areas to be darker than the default light gray background color in the Standard rendering. This makes it obvious (especially on LCD screens where lightness/luminance of colors vary depending on the viewing angle) that there is a tagged area there. You could make the case that the farmuse area could be lighter than it is now and/or use a different hue than brown, but don't make it as light as the default background color. On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, (full text and images at https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bYm9IWXdlVHM1N1U ) Recently landuse=farmland (or simply landuse=farm) has been added to fields near me. This has led to a discussion about how the rendering 'looks' with some arguing that it doesn't look that good. I believe that this may be due to the shade of colour used – specifically the farmland 'brown' is not as luminous as the default 'grey' (actually I think it 'lightness' rather than 'luminosity' that matters to the human eye but I got very confused when searching the two). Consider the image below, showing current rendering: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bZDBTN2dZZkpDenc On the left we have farmland tagged. The 'brown' has a Lightness value of 83 percent (luminance of 85%). Compare this to the default canvas 'grey', which has 93 percent Lightness (and 93 percent luminance). Now consider the following (and please check your screen calibration at http://www.photofriday.com/calibrate.php ). I have taken the farmland 'brown' and raised it's Lightness to the same 93 percent as the default 'grey' (that is, I have left the Hue and Saturation the same): https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bSzk5NDZVMm5GZkE In this final image, I have adjusted the Hue and Saturation to provide more of a 'green': https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bZXhzdVJMVU44X2M What are your thoughts? Which do you prefer? Have I gone too 'light' with the change and should some value in-between be used instead? Am I barking up the wrong tree? Regards, Rob Note: To focus discussion I want to avoid the argument that some people see farmland as the default and therefore it does not need to be tagged – it is a legitimate land-use tag and if people want to tag it then let them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
When using OSM on my phone, windscreen mount, whilst driving I find the biggest contrast problem is the green of forests can mask the green of trunk roads, where the road passes through forest Would be nice is the forest green could be lighter. Phil (trigpoint) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
Rob Nickerson wrote This has led to a discussion about how the rendering 'looks' with some arguing that it doesn't look that good. I believe that this may be due to the shade of colour used – specifically the farmland 'brown' is not as luminous as the default 'grey'. +1 What's more: The brown of farmland and the orange of secondary roads are very close and offer no contrast. A secondary road running through farmland is pretty much obfuscated and very hard to notice. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Rendering-of-Farmland-not-Light-enough-tp5742980p5743016.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 05:19 -0800, NopMap wrote: Rob Nickerson wrote This has led to a discussion about how the rendering 'looks' with some arguing that it doesn't look that good. I believe that this may be due to the shade of colour used – specifically the farmland 'brown' is not as luminous as the default 'grey'. +1 What's more: The brown of farmland and the orange of secondary roads are very close and offer no contrast. A secondary road running through farmland is pretty much obfuscated and very hard to notice. +1 I must admit I agree here, although so far less noticeable as very little farmland is tagged. I have never tagged farmland, after all if its not built up, woodland or outdoor leisure space/country park then its farmland. I would prefer to simply see the field boundaries mapped and unless there is some way to distinguish between arable and pasture then farmland does not really offer much that isn't obvious. Phil (trigpoint) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
On 01/06/2013 02:34 PM, Philip Barnes wrote: I would prefer to simply see the field boundaries mapped and unless there is some way to distinguish between arable and pasture then farmland does not really offer much that isn't obvious. That's why a lot of people use farm(land) only for arable land and grass for grasslands. -- --- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
Hi Farmyards are about the right shade. Fields eg landuse=farmland is slight too dark could do with lightening. My preference would be to still with a brown rather than a green (far too many items are already green - sports pitches are too dark IMO). On a related topic; if a field has a barrier tag it changes colour rendering at zoom 16: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/35032990 Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
On 6-1-2013 15:51, Dave F. wrote: On a related topic; if a field has a barrier tag it changes colour rendering at zoom 16: That's because having a landuse on it as well pushes it into the polygon table. It's subsequently rendered as a barrier area, ie. with the barrier=hedge fill. -- Lennard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough? Updated Proposals
Hi all, Thanks for the feedback. I have tested some other shades: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bMzVMQ1Z1SHFqcmM Any additional comments are very welcome. Rob On 5 January 2013 22:18, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, (full text and images at https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bYm9IWXdlVHM1N1U ) Recently landuse=farmland (or simply landuse=farm) has been added to fields near me. This has led to a discussion about how the rendering 'looks' with some arguing that it doesn't look that good. I believe that this may be due to the shade of colour used – specifically the farmland 'brown' is not as luminous as the default 'grey' (actually I think it 'lightness' rather than 'luminosity' that matters to the human eye but I got very confused when searching the two). Consider the image below, showing current rendering: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bZDBTN2dZZkpDenc On the left we have farmland tagged. The 'brown' has a Lightness value of 83 percent (luminance of 85%). Compare this to the default canvas 'grey', which has 93 percent Lightness (and 93 percent luminance). Now consider the following (and please check your screen calibration at http://www.photofriday.com/calibrate.php ). I have taken the farmland 'brown' and raised it's Lightness to the same 93 percent as the default 'grey' (that is, I have left the Hue and Saturation the same): https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bSzk5NDZVMm5GZkE In this final image, I have adjusted the Hue and Saturation to provide more of a 'green': https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bZXhzdVJMVU44X2M What are your thoughts? Which do you prefer? Have I gone too 'light' with the change and should some value in-between be used instead? Am I barking up the wrong tree? Regards, Rob Note: To focus discussion I want to avoid the argument that some people see farmland as the default and therefore it does not need to be tagged – it is a legitimate land-use tag and if people want to tag it then let them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough? Updated Proposals
On 6 January 2013 19:13, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the feedback. I have tested some other shades: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bMzVMQ1Z1SHFqcmM I think the first of the new ones under Update 1 (lighter brown; same lightness as landuse=residential) looks fine. I don't really like any of the other new ones though -- I think they're all too green (and we already use greens for lots of other things). Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
On 6 January 2013 01:54, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: I prefer landuse areas to be darker than the default light gray background color in the Standard rendering. This makes it obvious (especially on LCD screens where lightness/luminance of colors vary depending on the viewing angle) that there is a tagged area there. You could make the case that the farmuse area could be lighter than it is now and/or use a different hue than brown, but don't make it as light as the default background color. +1 In the first proposal, I find it very difficult to see the difference between the farmland and the non-tagged areas. It's a bit easier in the second proposal. It could maybe be made a bit lighter, but not by that much. What's the lightness of the current landuse=residential grey? What does it look like if you match the farmland colour to that? Robert. (full text and images at https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bYm9IWXdlVHM1N1U ) Recently landuse=farmland (or simply landuse=farm) has been added to fields near me. This has led to a discussion about how the rendering 'looks' with some arguing that it doesn't look that good. I believe that this may be due to the shade of colour used – specifically the farmland 'brown' is not as luminous as the default 'grey' (actually I think it 'lightness' rather than 'luminosity' that matters to the human eye but I got very confused when searching the two). Consider the image below, showing current rendering: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bZDBTN2dZZkpDenc On the left we have farmland tagged. The 'brown' has a Lightness value of 83 percent (luminance of 85%). Compare this to the default canvas 'grey', which has 93 percent Lightness (and 93 percent luminance). Now consider the following (and please check your screen calibration at http://www.photofriday.com/calibrate.php ). I have taken the farmland 'brown' and raised it's Lightness to the same 93 percent as the default 'grey' (that is, I have left the Hue and Saturation the same): https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bSzk5NDZVMm5GZkE In this final image, I have adjusted the Hue and Saturation to provide more of a 'green': https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bZXhzdVJMVU44X2M What are your thoughts? Which do you prefer? Have I gone too 'light' with the change and should some value in-between be used instead? Am I barking up the wrong tree? -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
On 06/01/2013 10:13, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: On 6 January 2013 01:54, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: In the first proposal, I find it very difficult to see the difference between the farmland and the non-tagged areas. It's a bit easier in the second proposal. It could maybe be made a bit lighter, but not by that much. Agreed -- a little lighter would be nice, but not as much as the first proposal. In this final image, I have adjusted the Hue and Saturation to provide more of a 'green': https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bZXhzdVJMVU44X2M I think it would be a pity to lose the hue relationship between fields farmyards (which are currently different lightnesses of an otherwise similar brown). -- Cheers, John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
Hi All, (full text and images at https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bYm9IWXdlVHM1N1U ) Recently landuse=farmland (or simply landuse=farm) has been added to fields near me. This has led to a discussion about how the rendering 'looks' with some arguing that it doesn't look that good. I believe that this may be due to the shade of colour used – specifically the farmland 'brown' is not as luminous as the default 'grey' (actually I think it 'lightness' rather than 'luminosity' that matters to the human eye but I got very confused when searching the two). Consider the image below, showing current rendering: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bZDBTN2dZZkpDenc On the left we have farmland tagged. The 'brown' has a Lightness value of 83 percent (luminance of 85%). Compare this to the default canvas 'grey', which has 93 percent Lightness (and 93 percent luminance). Now consider the following (and please check your screen calibration at http://www.photofriday.com/calibrate.php ). I have taken the farmland 'brown' and raised it's Lightness to the same 93 percent as the default 'grey' (that is, I have left the Hue and Saturation the same): https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bSzk5NDZVMm5GZkE In this final image, I have adjusted the Hue and Saturation to provide more of a 'green': https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bZXhzdVJMVU44X2M What are your thoughts? Which do you prefer? Have I gone too 'light' with the change and should some value in-between be used instead? Am I barking up the wrong tree? Regards, Rob Note: To focus discussion I want to avoid the argument that some people see farmland as the default and therefore it does not need to be tagged – it is a legitimate land-use tag and if people want to tag it then let them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
I should add that if you want to play with Hue, Saturation and Lightness (HSL) and Luminance then the following is a good place to start: http://www.workwithcolor.com/hsl-color-picker-01.htm Rob ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
I prefer landuse areas to be darker than the default light gray background color in the Standard rendering. This makes it obvious (especially on LCD screens where lightness/luminance of colors vary depending on the viewing angle) that there is a tagged area there. You could make the case that the farmuse area could be lighter than it is now and/or use a different hue than brown, but don't make it as light as the default background color. On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.comwrote: Hi All, (full text and images at https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bYm9IWXdlVHM1N1U ) Recently landuse=farmland (or simply landuse=farm) has been added to fields near me. This has led to a discussion about how the rendering 'looks' with some arguing that it doesn't look that good. I believe that this may be due to the shade of colour used – specifically the farmland 'brown' is not as luminous as the default 'grey' (actually I think it 'lightness' rather than 'luminosity' that matters to the human eye but I got very confused when searching the two). Consider the image below, showing current rendering: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bZDBTN2dZZkpDenc On the left we have farmland tagged. The 'brown' has a Lightness value of 83 percent (luminance of 85%). Compare this to the default canvas 'grey', which has 93 percent Lightness (and 93 percent luminance). Now consider the following (and please check your screen calibration at http://www.photofriday.com/calibrate.php ). I have taken the farmland 'brown' and raised it's Lightness to the same 93 percent as the default 'grey' (that is, I have left the Hue and Saturation the same): https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bSzk5NDZVMm5GZkE In this final image, I have adjusted the Hue and Saturation to provide more of a 'green': https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bZXhzdVJMVU44X2M What are your thoughts? Which do you prefer? Have I gone too 'light' with the change and should some value in-between be used instead? Am I barking up the wrong tree? Regards, Rob Note: To focus discussion I want to avoid the argument that some people see farmland as the default and therefore it does not need to be tagged – it is a legitimate land-use tag and if people want to tag it then let them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
