It is really difficult to answer two really different needs:
- a map for mappers: so that they can quickly see their contributions,
- a map for non-mappers: here some less cluttered rendering is needed, and
different styles needed depending of the use
I've always considered the default osm.org
Christoph Hormann wrote
It always amazes me how much the map style influences the mapping
practice, not only by obvious tagging for the renderer but also in the
form of subtle priorities. Having two separate styles - a 'data
verification' style and a 'presentation style' would help
I think it would be fun/good to have the default map be a simple wireframe
render (maybe with all the attributes shown as labels, and allowing
overlapping of them). It wouldn't be the best map, but it would point out
we have an incredible amount of data and that's what OSM is firstly about.
The
On Thursday 29 August 2013, Kai Krueger wrote:
[...] It really is a rather powerful reward to see your
effort being directly incorporated into the in production map
within minutes which can and _is_ viewed by millions of people.
This i can very much agree with.
My idea of a separate data
On 28 August 2013 12:02, Peter K peat...@yahoo.de wrote:
Or at least: will this default style be
further developed and improved?
See the following video for some background regarding the current
state of the main map style
Hi,
On 08/28/2013 01:02 PM, Peter K wrote:
too many unimportant information are packed on especially the higher zoom
levels
(smaller than 12).
If you follow these lists for a while (and possibly the enhancement
requests filed in trac or github for the map style) then you will see
that we
On 2013-08-28 13:02, Peter K wrote:
Hi there,
I know that this is highly subjective: But why has the default map
style to be that ugly? I don't mean it as a rant, I know how difficult
it is to create something like this. I only say that it is 'ugly'
because I know there are a lot better and
Hi Andy, hi Frederik, hi Maarten,
I know that this is highly subjective: But why has the default map
style to be that ugly? I don't mean it as a rant, I know how difficult
it is to create something like this. I only say that it is 'ugly'
because I know there are a lot better and several
Peter K schrieb am 28.08.2013 17:05:
See the following video for some background regarding the current
state of the main map style
http://vimeopro.com/openstreetmapus/state-of-the-map-us-2013/video/68093876
Since the conference, the new openstreetmap-carto stylesheets are now
live, and many
On 28 August 2013 16:05, Peter K peat...@yahoo.de wrote:
But I've always heard/read that the style has to stay
the same.
And where did you hear that? It's not something I've heard before.
Who can decide and develop this in the future?
That would be me, and whoever else contributes to the
On 28 August 2013 16:26, Holger Jeromin mailgm...@katur.de wrote:
I think the rewrite in carto wanted to maintain the visual result to be
sure to be able to switch the main rendering. Otherwise the switch could
be stopped by some for visual reasons.
Good point - that's probably the source of
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Peter K peat...@yahoo.de wrote:
I know that this is highly subjective: But why has the default map style
to be that ugly? I don't mean it as a rant, I know how difficult it is to
create something like this. I only say that it is 'ugly' because I know
there
Hi,
On 08/28/2013 05:05 PM, Peter K wrote:
We're trying to keep the default map usable but at the same time it is
also used by mappers to get feedback on their edits;
Ok, that is an argument. But I expect mappers to be able to switch the
layer in their settings in comparison to an average
On 28 August 2013 16:48, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that being pretty is not the goal of the default map style at all.
The primary goal of the default style is to expose as much of the OSM data
as possible.
That's widely held opinion, but there's an equally sized
On Wednesday 28 August 2013, Andy Allan wrote:
I think that being pretty is not the goal of the default map style
at all. The primary goal of the default style is to expose as much
of the OSM data as possible.
That's widely held opinion, but there's an equally sized opinion that
would
Am 28.08.2013 17:33, schrieb Andy Allan:
On 28 August 2013 16:26, Holger Jeromin mailgm...@katur.de wrote:
I think the rewrite in carto wanted to maintain the visual result to be
sure to be able to switch the main rendering. Otherwise the switch could
be stopped by some for visual reasons.
On 08/28/2013 09:05 PM, Peter K wrote:
As Frederik mentioned, the default style is a mapper's map. It's there
to provide instant feedback to mapping efforts.
Why? Who decides this? Why not a normal user map as default and the
mapper can choose its own preferred layer?
There is no such formal
Il giorno 28/ago/2013, alle ore 21:14, yvecai yve...@gmail.com ha scritto:
There is no such formal decision.
A user-oriented map style is not done because nobody has stand up to actually
do it, and have done it, simply.
there used to be one (osmarender tiles@home), but the crowd sourced
18 matches
Mail list logo
