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