On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What do people think of the latest iteration of > > http://www.cyclenation.org.uk/resources/mapping.php > (formerly http://www.cyclecheltenham.org.uk/map_standard.html )? > > We should probably get our oar in here and try to make the standard > base-map-neutral and colour-scheme-neutral. I shall have a word with > their feedback person, methinks; any other points I should be making?
[...snip...] I very much agree with all your points - the more objective the better, but the OSM slant on this is how crowd-sourceable the objective data is. Motor vehicle speed and traffic volume levels are the especially hard ones - the latter generally needing huge amounts of work spread over a few (long) days to get reasonable measurements. Now if only Local Authorities would put their survey data into the public domain... Likewise with the colour scheme - it's abysmal. It's not a linear scheme by any property of the colours - it's not even like the more saturated the colour the better/worse the route, or consecutive colours of the rainbow or anything. If we correctly classify all the roads in the UK I can guarantee that opencyclemap.org won't ever use those colours :-P My final point would be the selective arguments they are using to 'dis' route-based designs. The comparison between different types is a 'good' Cheltenham style map versus a poor route map. Grrr. And I still go for a large-tent approach to cycle maps - there's a place for route mapping as well as network mapping - and definitely a place for poor routes being improved rather than ignored. So I'd say: 1) Avoid the colour scheme 2) Question the crowd-sourcing-ness of some of the data, and work out how volunteers could do it without expert support 3) Use a nit-comb to remove all the OS and Google mentions from the proposed standard. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
