On 28/11/2014, Mihkel Rämmel <[email protected]> wrote: > In densely built up areas this change does not improve the visibility > of roads. The result is quite the opposite with residential and living > streets. > Choosing areas that have 99,9% of buildings tagged as building=yes as > sample areas does not show what we loose in the areas where buildings > are slowly getting tagged the way they should be. I would keep the > distinction between important buildings and non-important buildings.
I think this new style is a big improvement, but I too miss the greater color diversitybthat we have with the current style. Around the same time this merge request started (a good while ago now) I made another merge request[1] to cleanup the definition and styling of "minor" buildings (shed, roof, canopy, etc). The consensus was to get the more ambitious branch merged first and reintroduce minor buldings afterwards. I still think the consensus was a good one (the current proposal is taking long enough without adding to its requirements), but I'm taking the opportunity of this thread to get talk's opinion on rendering of minor buildings. [1]: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/568 _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
