I'm not proposing anything. Merely observing.
I am not the only one confused about which definition of "overwhelming consensus" was used... --colin On 2015-08-20 11:59, Paweł Paprota wrote: > What you are proposing is basically design by committee > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee) which is rampant > everywhere in OSM and kills innovation. Everyone wants to pile on their > own cause - be it privacy (see the latest pull request on Github > regarding Gravatar for another viable contender for the Waste of Time > prize) or some weird anarchy/freedom/whatever world views. > > At the same time there's a guy (Mateusz) who took on the task of making > the default style not suck - so what do people here do? Of course, let's > discuss this to death until everyone agrees. But then you may find that > no one wants to work with you on this anymore. > > In Poland we have this often-used saying with regards to the political > or social situation (yeah, we Poles like to complain a lot!) - it sucks > but at least it's stable! > > Paweł > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015, at 11:39, Colin Smale wrote: > >> That discussion is only a waste of time because people hope that a consensus >> will magically appear. The subject of the discussion is absolutely something >> which deserves air-time. I am not talking about the specific case of >> abandoned railways, but about who has the right to decide what data has no >> place in OSM and order its deletion. > >> What was that famous line in Animal Farm again? > >> --colin > >> On 2015-08-20 10:53, Paweł Paprota wrote: > > I'm taking bets on whether this thread will have more replies than the > "abandoned railroads" (100+ and still going strong!) and win the prize > for the Biggest Waste of Time in OSM for 2015. > > YES WE CAN('T) > > Paweł > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015, at 03:16, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: For those that > did not check on Mateusz Konieczny diary > entries[1[http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35586]], > > postings to this mailing list and github discussions then the Proposed > Great Colour Shift might come as a surprise if it is implemented. > > According to the github discussion there is an "overwhelming consensus" > [2] on moving from current rainbow colour scheme for roads to a > red-yellow only scheme. I am unsure of where this overwhelming consensus > formed because I never saw it on this mailing list nor on talk-dev nor > on announcements, I admit to be an infrequent IRC user but I didn't see > this overwhelming consensus there and so far no one has been able to > tell me where it formed or where I can find it. > > The design goal seems straight forward, to discontinue green and blue > for roads and move to red and reddish. For this to happen the decision > was made to shift current primary, secondary and tertiary colours > "upwards" so primary is now the colour of secondary and secondary the > colour of tertiary. Leaving tertiary white. > > Tertiary instead gets to be wider than residential and unclassified > roads, but to be able to spot that you need to have it next to them to > see which is the wider one. > > This one simple change of bleaching tertiary however is something I find > to be a great hindrance to mapping efforts, particularly in rural areas > where the roads are isolated and panning over the map, wether in iD or > using default tiles. Currently it is easy to spot tertiary roads snaking > through valleys and over vast desert plains, they are yellow and the non > tertiary roads are white. Tertiary is significant there as it denotes > the roads between the villages and towns that are often unpaved but > still the most important, even the only, road. Lesser white colours > imply the roads not being between larger settlements although they could > lead to hamlets. The guidelines for mapping in Africa state thus. > > Removing the colour from tertiary makes all mapping that much harder to > verify and quality check. Currently it is easy to see if a tertiary road > is broken with a white unclassified bridge, not so in the proposed Great > Colour Shift. > > Mateusz has been forthcoming with all changes and done sterling work in > displaying different areas and how they will look. But he acknowledges > that this change is not beneficial everywhere on the map and now has a > disclaimer: > > "Among potential problems are that it is now harder to recognise road > type of given road, especially in situation where there is no > possibility to compare it with other road types. > Such significant change will be confusing for current users of this > style. > UK color coding of roads is well known for many people, for them a new > style - even assuming that it would be intuitive for them - will be less > useful.)" > > The question really arises if this change is beneficial or not for the > project. Many hours have gone into it and doing CartoCSS on all these > zoom levels is not trivial. But this is a major shift on the front page > of our website, a blow to those who use the default tiles through uMap > or similarly and depend on the UK rainbow road style and makes life > harder for mappers to visually confirm the type of road. > > Should this be a new, alternative style instead? > > [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35586 > [2] > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1736#issuecomment-130592532 > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _________________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
