Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Lester Caine]

On 24/07/15 13:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dfarm has so few entries
>> > tagged that I am sure it could be 'retired' now?
> 
> like 640.000 few? I'd also like to retire it, but I wouldn't base that on 
> usage numbers ;-)

OK I was just looking at the bottom of the page and seeing '69' ...

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 24.07.2015 um 14:30 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny :
> 
> Obviously, incorrectly mapped landuse is worse than missing data.


yes, that was the question, what to consider 'correct'

cheers 
Martin 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Warin]

On 24/07/2015 7:49 PM, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:


On Fri Jul 24 09:45:06 2015 GMT+0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


Am 23.07.2015 um 20:49 schrieb Lester Caine :

What is needed is proper tagging of fields rather than adding random
areas of 'farmland' where the land outside of that is also farmland
anyway. So yes I would argue that some of these areas are wrong when
they have some arbitrary boundary through the middle of farmland.


+1, huge arbitrary farmland areas are pointless and hide the actual white spots 
where there would be something still to map.


+1
The same issues occur with vast residential areas.




-1

There is a balance between mapping large areas that are dominated by that 
landuse and individually mapping each farm/residence with its landuse.

The mapper makes their best choice between detail and work load. If someone 
does not 'like' it that can modify it,
hopefully to improve it rather than just deleting it!

I'm presently mapping residential areas ... getting tired of the detail I'm 
putting in,
I've noted other entries with less detail.
As the rendering is substantially the same I see little point in continuing 
with the detail I have been putting in and
may go with less detail and cover more of the map quickly that way.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 10:45:06 +0200
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> +1, huge arbitrary farmland areas are pointless and hide the actual
> white spots where there would be something still to map.

Main use of landuse is not for marking mapped areas. It may be used for
rendering lower zoom levels.

It is better to have mapped landuse that area lacking any data.

Obviously, incorrectly mapped landuse is worse than missing data.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 24.07.2015 um 12:22 schrieb Lester Caine :
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dfarm has so few entries
> tagged that I am sure it could be 'retired' now?


like 640.000 few? I'd also like to retire it, but I wouldn't base that on usage 
numbers ;-)


cheers 
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 24.07.2015 12:22, Lester Caine napisał(a):


As others have said - generally covering large areas as 'farmland' is
not helping anybody ...


For me it works - just like grassland or industrial, it shows what is 
the dominant of the whole area and I care for it a lot at middle zoom 
levels: at least I know what kind of place is it. Residential is also 
not just for showing the borders of individual "living boxes", but 
rather for showing what is the use of this area.


--
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down" [A. Cohen]


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Richard Mann]

Re central reservations on dual carriageways:

I did this for my local map:
http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/cyclemap/?zoom=2&lat=51.7245&lon=-1.24708&layers=B0FF

by adding a barrier=central_reservation way (with a further tag saying what
it was dividing)

I'd be a bit wary of using a two-stage casing to achieve a similar effect,
because
1) it'll take a lot of fiddling to get it to look good at a variety of
zooms, and with a variety of carriageway-separations
2) it's hard to make links work (you have to interweave the casing levels)

Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Lester Caine]

On 24/07/15 09:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> the wiki says farm and farmland are synonyms in osm, but farmland should be 
> preferred for reasons of ambiguity. Farmyard is distinct from these.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Farm
The Farm itself is always identified separately to the surrounding areas
and I read THAT page as saying landuse=farm is not valid.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dfarm has so few entries
tagged that I am sure it could be 'retired' now?

As others have said - generally covering large areas as 'farmland' is
not helping anybody ...

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[phil]

On Fri Jul 24 09:45:06 2015 GMT+0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > Am 23.07.2015 um 20:49 schrieb Lester Caine :
> > 
> > What is needed is proper tagging of fields rather than adding random
> > areas of 'farmland' where the land outside of that is also farmland
> > anyway. So yes I would argue that some of these areas are wrong when
> > they have some arbitrary boundary through the middle of farmland.
> 
> 
> +1, huge arbitrary farmland areas are pointless and hide the actual white 
> spots where there would be something still to map.
> 
+1
The same issues occur with vast residential areas.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Simone Cortesi]

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:58 AM, André Riedel 
wrote:

> > Do you mean like this
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.17024/-2.18493&layers=Q or
> > something else?
>
> Yes, of course. But the german style is closer to the colors of Mateusz.


As well it is close to the Italian one too. I like it!

-- 
-S
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[André Riedel]

2015-07-23 16:52 GMT+02:00 Lester Caine :
> On 23/07/15 15:37, André Riedel wrote:
>> It is not the coloring. I would prefer the rendering of motorway and
>> trunk with a outer and a inner line.
>>
>> better:
>> XIX
>> XIX
>> XIX
>>
>> than:
>> XX
>> XX
>> XX
>
> Do you mean like this
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.17024/-2.18493&layers=Q or
> something else?

Yes, of course. But the german style is closer to the colors of Mateusz.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 23.07.2015 um 20:49 schrieb Lester Caine :
> 
> What is needed is proper tagging of fields rather than adding random
> areas of 'farmland' where the land outside of that is also farmland
> anyway. So yes I would argue that some of these areas are wrong when
> they have some arbitrary boundary through the middle of farmland.


+1, huge arbitrary farmland areas are pointless and hide the actual white spots 
where there would be something still to map.

cheers
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 23.07.2015 um 20:49 schrieb Lester Caine :
> 
> The legend says 'Farm', and 'Farmyard' is a distinct land use from
> farmland, so they should be distinguishable,


the wiki says farm and farmland are synonyms in osm, but farmland should be 
preferred for reasons of ambiguity. Farmyard is distinct from these.

cheers 
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Andy Townsend]

On 23/07/2015 19:49, Lester Caine wrote:

On 23/07/15 19:34, Andy Townsend wrote:

It's actually "farmland" rather than farm, and therefore tagged
correctly.  If it was me I'd use a lightly colour for farmland so that
farmyards (also tagged correctly in that area) stand out a bit more
(obligatory "Blue Peter"** link http://imgur.com/L6l2g3z * to compare
with http://b.tile.openstreetmap.org/12/2028/1348.png ).

The legend says 'Farm', and 'Farmyard' is a distinct land use from
farmland, so they should be distinguishable, and while we don't 'tag for
the renderer' 


Oh, _that_ legend:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1268




You can argue whether or not populating most of England with
landuse=farmland is a good use of anyone's time, but you can't argue
that it's wrong :)

What is needed is proper tagging of fields rather than adding random
areas of 'farmland' where the land outside of that is also farmland
anyway. So yes I would argue that some of these areas are wrong when
they have some arbitrary boundary through the middle of farmland.



FWIW I personally tend to only add landuse when I've surveyed and added 
all the gates, stiles, gaps, hedges, walls, fences etc. - but it's an 
entirely personal choice.


Cheers,

Andy


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Lester Caine]

On 23/07/15 19:34, Andy Townsend wrote:
> It's actually "farmland" rather than farm, and therefore tagged
> correctly.  If it was me I'd use a lightly colour for farmland so that
> farmyards (also tagged correctly in that area) stand out a bit more
> (obligatory "Blue Peter"** link http://imgur.com/L6l2g3z * to compare
> with http://b.tile.openstreetmap.org/12/2028/1348.png ).

The legend says 'Farm', and 'Farmyard' is a distinct land use from
farmland, so they should be distinguishable, and while we don't 'tag for
the renderer' 

> You can argue whether or not populating most of England with
> landuse=farmland is a good use of anyone's time, but you can't argue
> that it's wrong :)
What is needed is proper tagging of fields rather than adding random
areas of 'farmland' where the land outside of that is also farmland
anyway. So yes I would argue that some of these areas are wrong when
they have some arbitrary boundary through the middle of farmland.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Andy Townsend]

On 23/07/2015 19:13, Lester Caine wrote:


The random use of FARM for large areas is totally inappropriate, and
personally I'd remove the bulk of those areas ... or cover the rest of
the UK. Using 'farm' for the central farm area makes much more sense and
is what is the normal standard south of 'Birmingham Farm' area ;)


It's actually "farmland" rather than farm, and therefore tagged 
correctly.  If it was me I'd use a lightly colour for farmland so that 
farmyards (also tagged correctly in that area) stand out a bit more 
(obligatory "Blue Peter"** link http://imgur.com/L6l2g3z * to compare 
with http://b.tile.openstreetmap.org/12/2028/1348.png ).


You can argue whether or not populating most of England with 
landuse=farmland is a good use of anyone's time, but you can't argue 
that it's wrong :)


Cheers,

Andy

* and FWIW that I believe is a better trunk option ("primary" red with 
dark red casing) than what we have now too.


** For those unaware with the British meme - a children's television 
programme that used to show kids how to make things out of odds and 
ends, and then at the end reappear with "and here is one I made earlier!".



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Lester Caine]

On 23/07/15 17:04, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Lester Caine  wrote:
> 
>> > From a UK point of view there nothing wrong with
>> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/52.1106/-2.0754 and certainly
>> > that is what is needed for any routing system.
> Yes, this part of map is not bad. I am not entirely sure whatever it
> will be true after landuse will be mapped.
> 
> Readability of nearby
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/52.2325/-1.5484 is poor, despite
> that landuse composition is quite favourable and forest rather not
> appearing near trunk roads.

The random use of FARM for large areas is totally inappropriate, and
personally I'd remove the bulk of those areas ... or cover the rest of
the UK. Using 'farm' for the central farm area makes much more sense and
is what is the normal standard south of 'Birmingham Farm' area ;)

But all of the heavy detail should be an a separate layer so we can
actually see the farms in the farmland areas.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:07:59 +0100
Lester Caine  wrote:

> From a UK point of view there nothing wrong with
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/52.1106/-2.0754 and certainly
> that is what is needed for any routing system.

Yes, this part of map is not bad. I am not entirely sure whatever it
will be true after landuse will be mapped.

Readability of nearby
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/52.2325/-1.5484 is poor, despite
that landuse composition is quite favourable and forest rather not
appearing near trunk roads.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Lester Caine]

On 23/07/15 15:37, André Riedel wrote:
> It is not the coloring. I would prefer the rendering of motorway and
> trunk with a outer and a inner line.
> 
> better:
> XIX
> XIX
> XIX
> 
> than:
> XX
> XX
> XX

Do you mean like this
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.17024/-2.18493&layers=Q or
something else?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Lester Caine  wrote:

> On 23/07/15 14:53, André Riedel wrote:
> > For me the way motorways and trunks are rendered in the german style
> > looks better.
>
> This is going to a sticking point much of the time. Certainly if the
> colours change form the current set, then I think we will be looking to
> provide a 'UK' rendering even if that means only covering the UK area.
> There is not a 'single' answer that will ever cover the whole planet,
> and keeping the 5 colours in the UK is important.
>
> From a UK point of view there nothing wrong with
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/52.1106/-2.0754 and certainly that
> is what is needed for any routing system
>

I think the standard Mapnik needs to be as generic as possible.  Certainly
the German model (also used by Navigon, especially before their merger with
Garmin) fails on it's face quite similarly to how the iconically American
style that Rand McNally popularized  (and
emulated regularly by Thomas Brothers, MapQuest, and early versions of
Google Maps) does.  I'm not too intimately familiar with other styles,
though I believe the existing Mapnik is a bit more universal than either
model (roughly splitting the difference), even if American users unfamiliar
with the style are unused to seeing surface expressways (trunks) rendered
differently than primaries, and are likely to go "wait, that's a toll
road?" seeing green...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[André Riedel]

It is not the coloring. I would prefer the rendering of motorway and
trunk with a outer and a inner line.

better:
XIX
XIX
XIX

than:
XX
XX
XX

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Lester Caine]

On 23/07/15 14:53, André Riedel wrote:
> For me the way motorways and trunks are rendered in the german style
> looks better.

This is going to a sticking point much of the time. Certainly if the
colours change form the current set, then I think we will be looking to
provide a 'UK' rendering even if that means only covering the UK area.
There is not a 'single' answer that will ever cover the whole planet,
and keeping the 5 colours in the UK is important.

From a UK point of view there nothing wrong with
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/52.1106/-2.0754 and certainly that
is what is needed for any routing system.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[André Riedel]

2015-07-23 11:01 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
> It includes preview of now differently rendered highway=motorway and 
> highway=trunk
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35437

For me the way motorways and trunks are rendered in the german style
looks better.
http://www.openstreetmap.de/karte.html?zoom=11&lat=48.8538&lon=21.23702&layers=B000TF

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:01:55 +0200
Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:

> I published new diary entry

There is also older entry, primarily about rendering surface tag
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35416

It was not mentioned on this mailing list.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Paul Johnson]

I think I'm still in heavy preference towards the more distinctive colors
and level of detail of the existing mapnik, but I do like the smaller line
weights for residential.

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> I published new diary entry. It includes preview of now differently
> rendered highway=motorway and highway=trunk, possible changes to
> rendering railway=rail, proposed change to rendering of minor service
> tram tracks and more.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35437
>
> Thanks for all test locations of rural areas! It is really useful.
>
> Also - is anybody aware about city where
> - landuse is mapped
> - highway=residential/unclassified/track is used correctly both in city
>   and nearby area
> - buildings and roads are mapped
>
> In other words - is there a perfectly mapped town/city?
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk