Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?
André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com wrote: In summary, I don't know how many of you appreciate to tag with this result where no tractor or motorbike driver will know which way they can go and where pedestrians will not know where they will quietly walk without meeting drivers... Probaly they should use OpenMapQuest , Humanitary, Hike@Bike or OpenMapSurfer for example http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.52902/5.81315layers=Q http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.52902/5.81315layers=H http://hikebikemap.de/?zoom=17lat=50.52902lon=5.81315layers=BTFFF F http://openmapsurfer.uni-hd.de/?zoom=19lat=50.52902lon=5.81315layers= B0FTFF -- Pierre-Alain Dorange OSM experiences : http://www.leretourdelautruche.com/map/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?
On 2014-05-19 18:12, André Pirard wrote : This is about OSM ticket https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/5163 (obsolete): The rendering of highway=path and highway=track is barely distinguishable. ... In summary, I don't know how many of you appreciate to tag with this result where no tractor or motorbike driver will know which way they can go and where pedestrians will not know where they will quietly walk without meeting drivers... https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/7649889/3034733/29cb8478-e07a-11e3-9366-2b852da13889.jpg ... instead of this looking more like a professional Geographic Institute map, I have explained that ... stockis osm new https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/7649889/3035288/496a45ee-e089-11e3-94c9-71745d7ca5a2.png in detail here https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/547 without being handicapped with file size limits. Especially comparison with IGN. Their first reply below: Any opinions?, encouraging replies. If you have any feelings or ideas about it, including helping Little Red Riding and Robin Hood, you know the address (github, not trac). Original Message Subject: Re: [openstreetmap-carto] paths and tracks renderings are indistinguishable (#547) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 09:16:30 -0700 From: math1985 notificati...@github.com Any opinions? — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/547#issuecomment-44669344. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?
Am 21.05.2014 06:51, schrieb André Pirard: On 2014-05-19 19:27, Matthijs Melissen wrote : If you feel strong about it, I would encourage you to open a new issue on https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto, the issue tracker of the CartoCSS used on openstreetmap.org http://openstreetmap.org. In general, any new issues with the rendering of the map on openstreetmap.org http://openstreetmap.org should be reported there. Please note that the Mapnik category on trac is obsolete - we are in the process of migrating old issues. Well, only strongly ;-) Yes, I finally opened this issue there on github https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/547#issuecomment-43706209, Thanks. Do not find the message but someone wrote lately that the mapnik tickets are converted to git issues. One of the mapnik tickets is about rendering width=* which could also help in this situation. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?
Hi, This is about OSM ticket https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/5163: The rendering of highway=path and highway=track is barely distinguishable. For example, many huge width highway=residential continue to an extra thin =track and then invisibly change to a =path. Just like on my National Geographic maps, I suppose that highway=track should be drawn with a distinguishable width something like half that of residential highways. On 2014-05-19 10:18, OpenStreetMap wrote : I don't think path and track are barely distinguishable. Ahem! Am I blind, is it just me or what? This is @ http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/281165129#map=18/50.52934/5.81330layers=D Look at Le Stockis : residential - track - path transitions in the circles where they meet. Compare with the IGN map on the right. Ask anyone without hinting them by the topology which is track and which is path. Note that you should still use highway=unclassified that are used for purposes other than agricultural/forest tracks, even if the roads are unsurfaced. The tracks you see are one in the forest and the other an access to a meadow. Are you suggesting to tag them for the renderer as unclassified? I will close this as wontfix. OSM is fun! don't tag for the renderer, ask for a fix they keep repeating, and here's the result. Isn't this request sensible? Anyone backing it? Please reopen. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?
André Pirard wrote: Hi, This is about OSM ticket https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/5163: The rendering of highway=path and highway=track is barely distinguishable. Just my 2p, but personally I don't think that the rendering of highway=track and highway=path on the standard map are barely distinguishable. Arguably (very much IMHO) there's too much differentiation of different sorts of tracks, paths, footways, bridleways, and cycleways rather than too little. If you feel strongly about it why not knock up a rendering with more differentiation between track and path and invite people to compare with the current standard map? Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?
This is @ http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/281165129#map=18/50.52934/5.81330layers=D Look at Le Stockis : residential - track - path transitions in the circles where they meet. Compare with the IGN map on the right. Ask anyone without hinting them by the topology which is track and which is path. Note that you should still use highway=unclassified that are used for purposes other than agricultural/forest tracks, even if the roads are unsurfaced. The tracks you see are one in the forest and the other an access to a meadow. Are you suggesting to tag them for the renderer as unclassified? No. In this particular example, the tagging is fine and tagging them as unclassified would be a mistake. don't tag for the renderer, ask for a fix they keep repeating, and here's the result. Isn't this request sensible? Anyone backing it? Please reopen. If you feel strong about it, I would encourage you to open a new issue on https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto, the issue tracker of the CartoCSS used on openstreetmap.org. In general, any new issues with the rendering of the map on openstreetmap.org should be reported there. Please note that the Mapnik category on trac is obsolete - we are in the process of migrating old issues. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?
On 2014-05-19 18:35, SomeoneElse wrote : André Pirard wrote: Hi, This is about OSM ticket https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/5163: The rendering of highway=path and highway=track is barely distinguishable. Just my 2p, but personally I don't think that the rendering of highway=track and highway=path on the standard map are barely distinguishable. Arguably (very much IMHO) there's too much differentiation of different sorts of tracks, paths, footways, bridleways, and cycleways rather than too little. On 2014-05-19 19:27, Matthijs Melissen wrote : No. In this particular example, the tagging is fine and tagging them as unclassified would be a mistake. ??? Did you make that test: asking people which is track or path? Where walkers and tractors would go? If you feel strongly about it why not knock up a rendering with more differentiation between track and path and invite people to compare with the current standard map? ¿¿¿ ¡¡¡ That is exactly what I did with showing OSM and IGN (SomeoneElse's ;-)) maps side by side !!! ??? No other map would think of not differentiating better those two ways and all the similar cases. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 2:38 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com wrote: Did you make that test: asking people which is track or path? Where walkers and tractors would go? Isn't this the job of the map key? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?
replying to tagging, it's the only one of these lists i'm on On 5/19/14 12:12 PM, André Pirard wrote: Hi, This is about OSM ticket https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/5163: The rendering of highway=path and highway=track is barely distinguishable. For example, many huge width highway=residential continue to an extra thin =track and then invisibly change to a =path. Just like on my National Geographic maps, I suppose that highway=track should be drawn with a distinguishable width something like half that of residential highways. On 2014-05-19 10:18, OpenStreetMap wrote : I don't think path and track are barely distinguishable. Ahem! Am I blind, is it just me or what? there have been a number of good replies. i'll add in something i don't think others have addressed... the default mapnik rendering on openstreetmap.org will never, ever be able to satisfy everyone. there's a reason why OSM has a strong architecture of map database, a well defined api/data interchange format, and multiple data consumers (renderers, indexes, routing engines, etc.) the track and path issue you identify is a subtle one, and like others, i suggest experimenting with potential improvements and if you get something better going, present it. make this better is kind of an open ended, what does better mean anyway sort of deal. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?
André Pirard wrote: On 2014-05-19 18:35, SomeoneElse wrote : If you feel strongly about it why not knock up a rendering with more differentiation between track and path and invite people to compare with the current standard map? ¿¿¿ ¡¡¡ That is exactly what I did with showing OSM and IGN (SomeoneElse's ;-)) maps side by side !!! ??? No other map would think of not differentiating better those two ways and all the similar cases. Sorry, I should have been clearer - I meant a modification to the existing osm-carto style that makes the difference clearer The IGN map doesn't differentiate between paths and tracks by colour, but by an extra-long dash, something that I don't think that osm-carto uses (but there's no technical reason why it couldn't). The advantage to seeing this on a web-based slippy map compared to a picture in a list message is that it allows you to move to features that you're familiar with, and compare the map with your mental picture. For example, when the cycle.travel maps appeared, some routes near me looked obviously wrong. This turned out to be a tracktype mistagging problem rather than a rendering one, but it had been there for a while because it just wasn't obvious on other renderings, and wouldn't be obvious to anyone not familiar with the routes concerned. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?
On 2014-05-19 19:41, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote : On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 2:38 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com wrote: Did you make that test: asking people which is track or path? Where walkers and tractors would go? Isn't this the job of the map key? Strangely, I was just looking at the key when your message popped up. Did you look too? Track Track Footway Footway Just like any sensible rendering like the IGN map I've shown etc, the key makes tracks very distinguishable from foot and more important, although I still maintain that tracks should be wider on the OSM map, as in reality. But if someone cares to look carefully, *the key does not correspond to the map at all !!!* *It even looks like the opposite*: smaller red south is the track and longer black north is the path !!! In consequence, my request could also be stated make the map like the key (and reality) ;-) But yes I know the usual answer to obviously necessary improvement requests: wontfix. On 2014-05-19 20:02, SomeoneElse wrote : The IGN map doesn't differentiate between paths and tracks by colour, but by an extra-long dash, something that I don't think that osm-carto uses (but there's no technical reason why it couldn't). The answers to all of that is in the maps and keys I have shown. First, differentiating (only) by color is not explicit unless you know the colors very well. And not very visible when the roads are thin, see map above, that's why IGN's black is fine in that case. Second, both IGN and standard OSM mostly differentiate ways by realistic width, to which they add color if wide. Colors you need not learn -- because you have width to tell importance -- are only useful to follow roads more easily. The net result of all this is that IGN is right: tracks and paths should be black and tracks should be wider that paths. IGN makes long dashes tracks to accentuate the width difference with path dots because these cannot be narrower. OSM might use continuous tracks if long dashes are a problem. Extentfully yours at your request, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?
Rendering issues/discussions are on the github page as stated. Please continue there if needed. But 2 things here. This is looks more similar because a) It is though a forest if the background is lighter it would be less of an issue. b) If Track type is not defined (or =grade3) then it looks similar. Different track types render differently. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype It has rendering examples although I think they may have changed slightly recently with new changes to osmcarto. In general ideas of those doing the osmcarto stuff is that the forest/woods and grassed areas are rendered too dark. They will likely change in the future. However also many think we have too many different types and there is confusion for all the dashed/dotted lines (purple, green, red, blue, black, etc, etc). There may be some consolidation at some point (which may/may not make this edge case worse/better) Hope that helps. Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 19:38:23 +0200 From: a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion? On 2014-05-19 18:35, SomeoneElse wrote : André Pirard wrote: Hi, This is about OSM ticket https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/5163: The rendering of highway=path and highway=track is barely distinguishable. Just my 2p, but personally I don't think that the rendering of highway=track and highway=path on the standard map are barely distinguishable. Arguably (very much IMHO) there's too much differentiation of different sorts of tracks, paths, footways, bridleways, and cycleways rather than too little. On 2014-05-19 19:27, Matthijs Melissen wrote : No. In this particular example, the tagging is fine and tagging them as unclassified would be a mistake. ??? Did you make that test: asking people which is track or path? Where walkers and tractors would go? If you feel strongly about it why not knock up a rendering with more differentiation between track and path and invite people to compare with the current standard map? ¿¿¿ ¡¡¡ That is exactly what I did with showing OSM and IGN (SomeoneElse's ;-)) maps side by side !!! ??? No other map would think of not differentiating better those two ways and all the similar cases. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:18 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com wrote: Strangely, I was just looking at the key when your message popped up. Did you look too? Just saw now that there is one problem in the key: there is no info about paths (only about tracks and footways, like you said). Where can this issue be reported? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?
Just to add to address these points. a) the key is static and not relevant to what is on the screen. footpath are in the key but not paths. There are dozens of things in then rendering we cannot add them all. Just the most common. The best solution would be a dynamic key that just displayed what is in the viewing area but don't expect this anytime soon (years to come) unless you do it yourself. b) There are plans to make better distinction by having all ways better defined on each zoom level (currently there are only for every few zoom levels) with more realistic widths. However this will start will major roads first but will do to tracks, paths, etc. in the end that will make it easier to tell when zoom in. And the mapnik team don't really have anything to do with this so no need to email them. Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 21:18:24 +0200 From: a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org CC: mapnik-t...@openstreetmap.org; openstreet...@matthijsmelissen.nl Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion? On 2014-05-19 19:41, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote : On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 2:38 PM, André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com wrote: Did you make that test: asking people which is track or path? Where walkers and tractors would go? Isn't this the job of the map key? Strangely, I was just looking at the key when your message popped up. Did you look too? Track Footway Just like any sensible rendering like the IGN map I've shown etc, the key makes tracks very distinguishable from foot and more important, although I still maintain that tracks should be wider on the OSM map, as in reality. But if someone cares to look carefully, the key does not correspond to the map at all !!! It even looks like the opposite: smaller red south is the track and longer black north is the path !!! In consequence, my request could also be stated make the map like the key (and reality) ;-) But yes I know the usual answer to obviously necessary improvement requests: wontfix. On 2014-05-19 20:02, SomeoneElse wrote : The IGN map doesn't differentiate between paths and tracks by colour, but by an extra-long dash, something that I don't think that osm-carto uses (but there's no technical reason why it couldn't). The answers to all of that is in the maps and keys I have shown. First, differentiating (only) by color is not explicit unless you know the colors very well. And not very visible when the roads are thin, see map above, that's why IGN's black is fine in that case. Second, both IGN and standard OSM mostly differentiate ways by realistic width, to which they add color if wide. Colors you need not learn -- because you have width to tell importance -- are only useful to follow roads more easily. The net result of all this is that IGN is right: tracks and paths should be black and tracks should be wider that paths. IGN makes long dashes tracks to accentuate the width difference with path dots because these cannot be narrower. OSM might use continuous tracks if long dashes are a problem. Extentfully yours at your request, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
