Add rendering for amenity=* and office=*

[jremillard]

Hi,

Any point that has an amenity or office tag and a name tag, should at least get its named rendered even if we don't have an icon at max zoom.

Most of the POI's in the mall are not rendered.

http://osm.org/go/ZfJD0RleX--

• bench Add rendering for amenity=bench #194
• public_building (won't fix)
• bicycle_parking Add rendering for amenity=bicycle_parking #591
• waste_basket Add rendering for amenity=waste_basket #418
• townhall Add rendering for amenity=townhall #77
• parking_space Add rendering for amenity=parking_space #776 (won't fix)
• hunting_stand Add rendering for amenity=hunting_stand #966
• vending_machine add rendering for amenity=vending_machine #1561
• fountain Add rendering for amenity=fountain #705
• social_facility Adding amenity=social_facility icon #1776
• car_wash Adding amenity=car_wash icon #1777
• marketplace Add rendering for amenity=marketplace #751
• dentist
• waste_disposal Add rendering for amenity=waste_disposal #419
• community_centre Add rendering for amenity=community_centre #506
• taxi Add rendering for amenity=taxi #879
• fire_hydrant (won't fix)
• veterinary clinic Adding amenity=veterinary icon #1656
• parking_entrance Add rendering for amenity=parking_entrance #270
• nursing_home
• arts_centre Adding icon for amenity=arts_centre #2520
• nightclub Add rendering for amenity=nightclub #456

[dieterdreist]

Il giorno 09/ago/2013, alle ore 03:41, Jason Remillard [email protected] ha scritto:

Any point that has an amenity or office tag and a name tag, should at least get its named rendered even if we don't have an icon at max zoom.

or craft or shop

[jremillard]

Yes, I meant to include shop too.

[dkniffin]

I fixed the shop portion of this with #117.

I might submit another pull request with a generic rendering of amenity= although unlike shop=, it'll probably only be named amenities.

I can't find any instances of craft= or office= already being rendered

[b108]

Craft= and office= are not rendering. That will be very good improvement to start render them.

[tuxayo]

I fully agree with this, when the pull request of @oddityoverseer13 will be ready, doing the same thing for office=* and amenity=* should be easy?

[matthijsmelissen]

We dont't want to render spelling mistakes, so we should come up with a list of tags to render.

[dkniffin]

Yea, we can do something very similar to #604 for office, amenity, and craft. The script I wrote can be easily adapted for that. Maybe we can come up with a different generic office, amenity, and craft icon?

[matthijsmelissen]

Craft is not in the database, so cannot be done straightaway. I would focus on office and amenity first. Not sure if a blacklist-system for amenity would work well, because the amenity thing key contains all kind of different things and we might not want to render most.

[dieterdreist]

Am 20/giu/2014 um 18:34 schrieb oddityoverseer13 [email protected]:

a different generic office, amenity, and craft icon?

for bigger office areas we show the information with the landuse=commercial tag

the various amenities and crafts are so different in nature that an icon doesn't give you any more information, we could simply show a name label, but then this would also display objects with typos in the tags (not desirable for this map)

[pnorman]

Craft is not in the database, so cannot be done straightaway

It also gets us into a tagging mess, because craft=* is not generally used for crafts, but for trades, but it's not exclusively craft=*.

[dieterdreist]

Am 22/giu/2014 um 20:25 schrieb Paul Norman [email protected]:

It also gets us into a tagging mess, because craft=* is not generally used for crafts, but for trades, but it's not exclusively craft=*.

the tag comes from the German community and was intended to mean "Handwerk" which is basically a medieval concept but still valid in today's reality in Germany at least (I guess in most of Europe). My dictionary gives both terms, trade and craft, for the German word, not sure what the differences are. It has also to do with guilds, or nowadays the IHK (Industrie- und Handwerkskammer = ~ chamber of industry and trades/crafts). It is mostly not about handy craft.

[pnorman]

craft=electrician, craft=roofer, craft=plumber, craft=hvac, and craft=painter are excellent examples of trades. The key is a muddle of trades, industrial (craft=agricultural_engines, craft=sawmill), and actual crafts (craft=handicraft). Trying to add a generic rendering for craft would be like trying to add a generic rendering for amenity, which includes prisons to ice cream stores.

[dieterdreist]

2014-06-22 23:33 GMT+02:00 Paul Norman [email protected]:

The key is a muddle of trades, industrial (craft=agricultural_engines,
craft=sawmill), and actual crafts (craft=handicraft). Trying to add a
generic rendering for craft would be like trying to add a generic
rendering for amenity.

I agree that the description of craft in the wiki is poorly drafted, e.g.
because it doesn't tell how to differentiate between industrial and craft,
but aside from this it seems mostly a cultural / language problem. The term
"trade" is commonly translated as de:"Handel" (buying and selling), which
won't include any work like producing, repairing, etc.

The specific value craft=agricultural_engines was also emerging from
talk-de [1] and as I understand it shouldn't be applied to industrial scale
manufacturing instances of this (as industrial stuff gets tagged
man_made=works), but rather to relatively small businesses which offer
repair and maintenance of agricultural machinery (maybe a poorly designed
value) and often also sell these. A business like this relates to the
industry like a mechanic relates to a car manufacturer.

One of the reasons why "craft" was chosen as a key is also wikipedia I
guess, because the German article "Handwerk" translates to the English
"craft" [2] there, and the first sentence seems to fit more or less
("pastime" doesn't actually fit): "A craft is a pastime or a profession
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession that requires some particular
kind of skilled work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skilled_worker. In a
historical sense, particularly as pertinent to the Middle Ages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages and earlier, the term is usually
applied to people occupied in small-scale production of goods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_%28economics%29, or their maintenance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance,_repair,_and_operations, for
example by tinkers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker. The traditional
terms craftsman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craftsman_%28disambiguation%29 and craftswoman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craftswoman are nowadays often
replaced by artisan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artisan and rarely by craftsperson (
craftspeople http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craftspeople)."

only at the end of the article there is a reference to trade [3] which
doesn't really explain the difference between a craft and a trade: "A
tradesman is a skilled manual worker in a particular trade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_%28occupation%29 or craft.
Economically and socially, a tradesman's status is considered between a
laborer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laborer and a professional
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional, with a high degree of both
practical and theoretical knowledge of their trade."

If the current term "craft" is not well chosen for what it is intended to
describe we should re-discuss this on the [tagging]-ML, as this is a really
important part of today's economic reality in central Europe.

[1]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2010-November/079014.html
or http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.region.de/59615

[2] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handwerk ->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craft

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craft#Tradesman

[daganzdaanda]

Is there a difference in US and UK usage of the words "craft" and "trade"?

Linguee.com is useful to find out how a term is used and translated on the web. Of course, it depends on the texts that are available, which may not always have been translated very well...

"Handwerker" is a craftsman (or plural craftsmen).
http://www.linguee.com/english-german/search?source=auto&query=Handwerker

"Handwerk" is not clear: "craft" is used about 47% of the time, and "trade" about 35%.
http://www.linguee.com/english-german/search?source=auto&query=Handwerk

But the other way around, "craft" is translated as "Handwerk" nearly 75% of the time, while "trade" is translated mostly as "Handel" (50%) and only infrequently as "Handwerk" (6%).
"Handicraft" is 34% Handwerk and 25% "Kunsthandwerk" (i.e. more artisanal).

I get the feeling "craft" is OK to describe the German concept of Handwerk. Maybe "trade" would be more correct and sound better to a native speaker, but trade has more and stronger additional meanings which might confuse mappers.
Also, changing the tagging now might not really be a good thing, as has been explained with the power=sub(_)station issue. (Or would it still be okay, since it isn't rendered on most maps yet?)

It's still true that some of the things tagged with craft=* probably should be tagged as something else.

[AndiG88]

industrial (craft=agricultural_engines, craft=sawmill)

I agree that some tags don't seem to belong in craft at all, but I think the generall idea was to use craft for local traditional small scale production and man_made=works if it is industrial (e.g. brewery).

I guss a lot of stuff ends up in craft= simply because man_made=works is even worse defined. I mean how Am I supposed to tag a sawmill? man_made=works + product=wood? I think for this tag to be used more it need something like works=sawmill/chemical_plant/brewery/... and not just product=*.

[daganzdaanda]

These are the 60 most used amenity values that are not in the map style yet (Groups of 10):

bench 405 099
kindergarten 124 453
public_building 113 264
bicycle_parking 99 341
waste_basket 90 961
townhall 58 807
parking_space 55 866
swimming_pool 49 894
hunting_stand 49 868
vending_machine 47 722

fountain 46 669
doctors 37 908
social_facility 32 508
car_wash 28 509
marketplace 22 885
dentist 21 525
waste_disposal 19 918
community_centre 19 590
taxi 18 310
residential 15 833

fire_hydrant 13 787
veterinary 12 451
parking_entrance 10 367
nursing_home 10 329
courthouse 9 762
clinic 9 650
arts_centre 9 534
nightclub 9 259
bbq 8 883
ferry_terminal 8 844

grit_bin 7 430
car_rental 6 453
clock 5 622
driving_school 4 964
ice_cream 4 109
charging_station 3 291
bureau_de_change 2 756
boat_storage 2 400
sauna 2 084
shop 2 074

motorcycle_parking 1 905
food_court 1 893
shower 1 833
studio 1 785
watering_place 1 747
brothel 1 503
retirement_home 1 368
childcare 1 356
casino 1 261
gambling 1 054

garages 918
gym 881
social_centre 826
public_hall 802
payment_terminal 776
refugee_housing 694
compressed_air 635
youth_centre 630
water 621
building 619

I removed "yes" and "abandoned", hope I missed nothing worthwhile.
It is a very mixed bunch!

[matthijsmelissen]

Thank you for the overview, very interesting.

What does amenity=residential mean?

This is also very related to #660. Instead of making decisions for the individual cases, I think it would be good to have some strategy on how to decide which map features to add.

[daganzdaanda]

Here the values that are in the code, with empty lines to show what's missing

parking 1 438 945 
place_of_worship    604 588
school  596 793
restaurant  409 238

fuel    227 583
post_box    162 239
grave_yard  157 106
bank    156 345
fast_food   150 905
cafe    148 339
recycling   125 719

hospital    116 763
pharmacy    116 475

post_office 108 357
pub 102 829


toilets 89 873
telephone   82 900
shelter 79 048
drinking_water  73 417
atm 73 067
police  68 198
fire_station    67 923
bar 64 523





library 47 537

university  38 200



college 27 566
bus_station 25 261




theatre 18 543

cinema  15 865


bicycle_rental  12 574










emergency_phone 7 302
biergarten  6 493


prison  5 423
embassy 5 110

car_sharing 4 706

[daganzdaanda]

What does amenity=residential mean?

I'm sure it is an error. Maybe something that happens when an old value is still in an editor, after tagging landuse or highway=residential. But many seem to be combined with buildings, so could be that this should say these are "residences"?
Is there a way to find out if a specific editor is to blame? I used taginfo's overpass-query, and did not see any clear trend.

This is also very related to #660. Instead of making decisions for the individual cases, I think it would be good to have some strategy on how to decide which map features to add.

Yes indeed. amenity is a kind of catch-all, but some of the other tags are also not very uniform.
Also, there is probably another, better tagging for many of the lesser used amenities, so we don't have to render bad tagging...

Maybe we could come up with groups of POIs that should be treated in a similar way (not just in key:amenity)

• healthcare related stuff (doctors, dentist, pharmacy, clinic, hospital, ...)
• social infrastructure (community, youth, elderly, disabled, ...)
• transportation services (e.g. rental, fuel, charging, parking)
• food and drink (most are probably fine)
• shops (should be fine now, more or less)
• offices
• sanitation services? (toilets, recycling, wastebaskets? something else?)
• things that may be landmarks or useful for finding your way around?
• street furniture (benches, wastebaskets, lamps ...)

[matthijsmelissen]

I think the hardest ones are the government/social facilities.

We have public_building, townhall, social_facility, community_centre, nursing_home, retirement_home, refugee_housing, youth_centre, etc.

I think the name of these should be rendered on the map. But should they also get an icon? My gut feeling says that they would look better without icon, but I can't quite tell why. Also, would a text without icon look fine if these amenities don't take up a full building?

[daganzdaanda]

(social facilities) I think the name of these should be rendered on the map

Yeah, they do serve a public interest. Funnily, I had the same thought, that they don't need an icon! Maybe it's because the icons would not be easily recognizable or intuitive? How would an icon for a nursing_home look?
So just a name would be fine. Maybe all these can get a new color for the text, or a typographic treatment like italics? I guess we would have to see a test to gauge how it looks if it is not taking the full building, sitting off-centre or at an entrance.

Also, social_facility has a lot of sub-tags to replace many of the other tags:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Social_facility
Should we start rendering nursing_home, youth_centre etc, or should we favour the social_facility route, or both?

[matthijsmelissen]

See also https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4420 (veterinary), https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2199 (brothel), and https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4742 (motorcycle_parking).

[andrzej-r]

I've just noticed https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html renders office=company as a dot and a name. Perhaps the implementation can be reused.

[kocio-pl]

Would you like to prepare the code? That would help a lot.

[geesona]

I provided a suggest icon for a bbq #2996 a week ago is some one able to check it for me to see if it is suitable and maybe implement it?
https://gist.github.com/geesona/a5912e34c377d644e088889ecf40d09d

[Tomasz-W]

I think this issue should be renamed to "Render amenity=* as dots + names".

Let's review first comment #108 (comment) :

• vending_machine -> it has ticket for separate icon (add rendering for amenity=vending_machine #1561)
• parking_entrance -> it has ticket for separate icon (Add rendering for amenity=parking_entrance #270)
• nursing_home -> this tag was moved to a subtag of amenity=social_facility (which has it's own icon at this moment), so it's not up to date
• there are some amenity=* tags which already has separate tickets for icon and wasn't included here (e.g. bbq or studio) and it's ok because we don't mess up the topics

The only thing which stay left to discuss here is generic dots for amenities which don't have separate tickets for own icons.

[andrzej-r]

Can someone compile a list of amenity tags that are currently not rendered and could be added as a dot + name? The one from @daganzdaanda is a bit out of date now.

If so, I will prepare a PR similar to #3163.

[Tomasz-W]

After review of a topic, I think we shouldn't use dot-rendering for any amenity=*. This tag is so diversified that generic-dot may be confusing. We should just discuss using dedicated icon if we want to add rendering for some amenity.

[andrzej-r]

I partially disagree. Yes, we would like to have icons for amenity tags (BTW, office= tags are not an exception, there are some good candidates for an icon as well) but the priority should be in supporting all documented or popular tags in the first place.

What I propose is a 2 stage approach. First we implement all missing tags as dots and then, one by one, add icons for them.

[Tomasz-W]

I looked at all issues with "amenity-points" label https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues?page=2&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+amenity+label%3Aamenity-points
and also at all amenity=* issues which has been referenced here.
I don't see any amenity=* candidates for dot-rendering.

@andrzej-r Can you give examples which tags do you consider?

[andrzej-r]

@Tomasz-W there are over 9000 amenity tag values: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/amenity#values

Over 110 are documented in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:amenity. ID currently have 25 presets for amenity=*.

As I mentioned in #3163, my (new) proposal is to have a catch-all clause rendering all amenity=* and office=* tags with a simple dot+name. On top of that we can special-case any other tag values (icons, custom filtering/rendering options) just like we are doing it now.

Even if we were to use an opt-in approach, it is still useful to have a fall-back rendering for tags do not have an icon for just yet.

[kocio-pl]

While office sounds OK for me to always be rendered with a dot, amenities are too different. It might be another kind of eating place, street furniture or almost anything else. Therefore I would be more careful when rendering amenities and do it only for whitelisted values. Probably some of them need to move to the new keys to make it more clear what they really are.

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

On 7. Apr 2018, at 11:28, kocio-pl ***@***.***> wrote: While office sounds OK for me to always be rendered with a dot,

I could imagine limiting these to large offices, i.e. on areas and >=limit Generally, while bigger offices can be landmarks, most offices are IMHO not significant enough for this general style.

[andrzej-r]

dieterdreist, you have to tweak both icon and label rendering paths. Not saying it is not possible (I tried it before) but the combinations quickly pile up. For example, office= tags are quite often combined with landuse= (not just building= tags) and there are likely a lot of other corner cases. Also, without rendering at least an icon or dot you will often not see the tag at all - in congested areas labels often hidden even at z19.

Do more people agree that dots on the buildings are undesirable? If so, do you have any ideas for a solution?

[matkoniecz]

office= tags are quite often combined with landuse=

This sounds like a tagging mistake, can you give an example of place where this tagging is correctly used?

[andrzej-r]

There are many such unexpected tag combinations in use. Given their popularity I wouldn't automatically dismiss them as tagging errors. One reason is lack of support for office tags in carto, so there is no visual feedback to the mappers.

Edit: I noticed another use case - some ways are tagged with office=* only (no building or landuse tags).
example

Edit 2: or plain area= or indoor mapping like here.

I've even seen spotted a combination of landuse=school, amenity=school and office=educational_institution, although I'm OK treating this one as a tagging issue.

[Tomasz-W]

For me, this issue is resolved by #3163 .
See #108 (comment) and later comments, there wasn't much support for amenities generic dots idea.

[matthijsmelissen]

I think we should still consider the last three individual amenities in the initial post.

[Tomasz-W]

I think we should still consider the last three individual amenities in the initial post.

@matthijsmelissen I agree, but:

• vending machines -> separate ticket add rendering for amenity=vending_machine #1561
• parking entrances -> PR Adding rendering for amenity=parking_entrance [WIP] #2875
• nursing_home -> this tag was moved to a subtag of amenity=social_facility (which has it's own icon at this moment), so it's not up to date

This meta-issue is unnecessary in this situation.

[matthijsmelissen]

Alright, happy to close this item!