-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 821
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Outline coordination (meta issue) #3045
Comments
I don't have a time to look at it, but big thanks for pushing this forward! |
I propose. Unfortunately, I do not have artistic skills so there are not many pictures. tourism=theme_park, tourism=zoo these are purely commercial and entertainment areas designed mainly for children's entertainment. Should be marked with a bright, intense color (like school, landuse=retail, landuse=commercial) I suggest yellow, orange or red tourism=museum This is the largest group of objects to be considered. These are various areas of an educational nature, which is why a more subdued color would brown #734a08: exactly the same as it is currently used by tourism=theme_park, tourism=zoo. amenity=monastery I think landuse=religous it's fine right now. If not, possibly a border slightly darker than #734a08: or violet border https://postimg.org/image/t94dqpg8b/ amenity=prison this is a place of isolation, and it should not be distinguished in any way from surrounding the current method of tagging should take hold. landuse=military the area should be less noticeable at the moment it is too bright, leaving aside that the military areas should be camouflaged:) I would suggest changing the color to gray just like amenity=prison. Since this is not an area that should attract tourists with its color, the meaning of gray should be ok. Contrary to appearances, large gray areas also stand out, but not as in shades of red. In my opinion, strategic places such as Military areas, police and low importance as prisons should not stand out too much from other areas. The gray color would be fine here. There is also an area that is eagerly mapped all over the world, but there is no definition on the wiki children's traffic park or traffic town I suggest roses https://s17.postimg.org/x9bj2qwcv/r_owy.png or blue https://s17.postimg.org/p3th4g2xb/granat.png https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dplayground #Possible combination or new Tag? nature=reserve I do not feel the need for a bigger change in this case for now. |
Is that solid fill colour under everything? I'd indeed prefer that to the current transparent overlay which causes tinting. Are the different outline colours in the first example only from the barrier? |
More or less. Currently it's done by overlaying transparent raster file, so when I gave up with more subtle methods, I just tried to pick the resulting color from rendering. Hence it's probably mix of lighter parts of this file with ground color, but that's probably the most typical case. Applying it in a rough way hides all the buildings, but that's not important in this phase.
Yes, I think so. |
General thoughts about military areas:
|
Outlines should be offset inwards into the polygon (as with the current zoo). When you shift them outwards they interact badly with adjacent areas. Current military is in the middle which already has some interaction, see my example in the first post. The problem with military forest was probably the reason why hatching was chosen originally. We are running into the old issue of landuse vs. landcover. I was searching the mapnik doc if there was some algorithmic area hatching without pattern files, but could not find any? |
My idea is to at least update current rendering:
I think that will improve rendering to a reasonable state, so we can think about further changes later. |
This may work better for small areas like the ones in your examples but it will be almost as obnoxious at middle zoom levels (8-10) as it is now. In that scenarios it is mostly the border and fill that dot the map. Consider (1) turning down the opacity of the fill colour and thickness of the boundary, or (2) greatly (>10x) increasing the size filter threshold. Preferably both. To avoid stacking issues with other land uses I would suggest keeping these layers as transparent overlays as it is now. I don't know if it is technically possible but putting the overlay below buildings/roads and above land uses could work well. |
Could you provide some code to test the suggested changes? Current style code is here:
|
I can provide it but it would be essentially the same code as in my previous proposal minus hatching. Is there anything you would like me to try or do differently this time? |
BTW, my comment about placing the transparent overlay behind buildings etc is incorrect - it is already the case in the current implementation. So it may be good to keep military areas as overlays. I the evening I will prepare a new proposal implementing the following:
Does the above sound worth trying or do you want me to change/add anything? |
That sounds good. BTW: why did you close the #3035? |
I'd like to have some clarity about what we want to show before we prepare any code or jump into details, that might save work in the long run. So, how visible should the landuse=military be, from a distance (low zoom) and close up (high zoom)? An outline shows the perimeter well in low zoom, but when we are in the middle of the area we don't get that hint any more. For other landuses, the area is shown via intransparent colour fill, with infrastructure on top. This will work for military as well (if we find a colour distinguishable enough from commercial), with one exeption, that are forests. You might have forest within the military, and military within forests. Using a transparent overlay (if there is no hatching you probably don't need a PNG) is visible in both high and low zoom, but when zoomed in you don't get a clue why the colour is strangely tinted. Furthermore, as the eyes adjust to the overall colour of the area, the overlay becomes unrecognisable. I don't know if @gravitystorm is following us here, but I remember he was fighting against transparencies for exactly this reason. Things like how transparent outlines could be used, and their thickness, should be discussed separately, for different outline cases together. That was the prime goal of this meta issue here. |
I believe that discussion is very general and might easily stuck at some point, so I'd like to make some limited steps when possible which are not turning for example the military areas upside down. Discussing transparency is important, but it can be resolved later (if ever, because this is tough problem). Are there some things which you agree that can be changed without big hassle, so we could try to do that, or you think that nothing should be changed until we set general rules for outlining? I'd be happy to go on with these smaller changes and discussing big things in the background. |
I don't like this idea. Military area is dangerous (you can get shot there), but police/ fire stations are places where you can shelter from danger. For me, they are kind of opposite things and military style shouldn't include them. |
Military danger area is defined separately and I plan to keep the hatching there. We look for similar things to make "clusters", but they can differ of course. |
I'm happy going ahead with the plan above. Seems like a fair trade off and a good step forward from the current implementation. Otherwise we may have an endless debate on unification and aesthetics - that has derailed #3035, and may very well derail this ticket too. I think unifying wrt "uniformed services" is a fine and easy to understand concept. Level of danger would also be OK but that may be too subjective (what about runways or volcanoes while we're at it?) and, aside of danger areas, not currently mapped. My issue with military areas is that they tend to be quite big and often contain other land uses. So we need transparency/hatching and run into over prominent rendering issues at mid zoom levels. Nothing that couldn't be fixed with more aggressive filters, though. I don't mind either transparency or hatching, assuming we are OK with a raster image I may keep very slight hatching (just a notch less transparent than the rest of the background), if only for familiarity reasons. Just transparency is also OK IMHO, once we are inside the area we no longer need visual hints about it, just like we don't need the name of the country when zoomed to a street level. |
andrzej-r@f9f190a |
I am happy in general as an intermediate fix to the current ugliness, thanks. A small concern is the |
I've removed filtering at zoom>=13 and reduced border thickness at low zoom (no change at zoom>=15 when exact border location may be of interest). andrzej-r@b81bc8f |
Note that opacity-based artefacts can be reduced by using compositing. For example, to avoid problems where multiple overlapping landuse areas leads to unwanted effects, you can fill the polygons at full opacity and then use |
@andrzej-r Since we agree that it'd be a good intermediate change, I guess you can open a PR. There are many details we want to test, but they don't belong here. It was important to make sure that this change is not against global outline plans, but that's enough for now. |
A vote here to add historic=castle to the list. The boundaries of a castle's outer fortifications may be well known even though some sections of wall may no longer be present. I consider it of interest to data consumers have that original outline visible in some way, in the same way that they can see the outline of an industrial estate or a school. In the case I'm thinking of, Cardigan Castle, that outline is somewhat similar to Cadw's listing of the castle as a scheduled monument (Cadw include some land outside the fortifications to the east, amongst other differences). Although there are modern buildings within the extent of the fortifications they (and some buildings outside the fortifications) are all operated by the Castle Preservation Trust as a tourist attraction. There is some argument to be made for also marking that outer area to include all the things operated by the preservation trust despite being outside the original fortifications, but I can't think of a suitable tag. For example, itx would be nice for data consumers to know that the children's playground to the east is part of the "castle experience." |
Any news here, maybe something is ready for PR? |
Still interested to finish the museum and accomodation when a time budget comes along. |
wrong button, sorry |
Border of education color is barely visible: |
Why not the same colour than the label ? |
Good idea. We could have a black label on a black background. And when you click on it, it lights up black. Yes, I stole that idea from Douglas Adams. |
@jragusa, it would probably be %30 darken (or whatever) of the main yellow color. I think that's how every other border color is. |
I prefer outline more than just a border (see #3045 (comment)), and some "darken, X%" of amenity yellow fill would propably work good. |
I see two separate issues here:
This is apparently a side-effect of the recent changes of the education-colour. The border is supposed to make adjacent areas visible, this should be simply fixed b adjusting the border appropriate for the new fill colour. I opened #3519 for this.
This is a more general decision. |
I'd like to add Now that the |
My proposition is to change zoo and theme_park to violet, which would make possible to merge brown outlines for aboriginal areas without visual clash. We could also add orange border for museum and other cultural areas, but that is not crucial - it just helps to explain why choose violet for amusement (makes some sense to use less strong color for cultural areas). |
Added boundary=aboriginal_lands to top post. |
@polarbearing, what are the pros and cons of each? Id think as more areas get mapped next to each other where double outline collusion (I think that's the issue with national park boundaries) might happen and more areas get outlines it would be good to have some kind of standardization and move away from the double-line style. I'm sure most people don't know or care what the difference is. |
Double line is to make it clear which part is inside and which is outside. It is needed only for big areas which at the same time have no filling, so:
|
thanks kocio-pl, that's the reasoning I remember as well. I just had the idea we could make it dependent on way area as well. |
That's would make sense to create a document (or to include into |
Some areas on the map already use outlines, for other features it has been proposed.
This issue intends to coordinate such approaches and find a common language among them, following on #1624 which discusses some candidates.
Current use of outlines
Examples are in z13 and z17.
large parks/reserves
Double line with a darker outside and a more transparent inside. That visualises the direction of the outline even when only parts of the polygon is in the viewer's window.
tourism = theme_park, tourism = zoo, identical, color =
#660033
(changed from tourism brown#734a08
in #3582):new: - old:
nature=reserve
green
, painted in addition to the light linegreen
, (z>=14) width 6hatched overlays
landuse=military
#f55
, opacity 0.329, patternmilitary_red_hatch.png
amenity=prison
#888
, opacity 0.329, patterngrey_vertical_hatch.png
Proposed outlines:
tourism=museum areas #2704
tourism=(accommodation) on the example of leisure=resort #2290
amenity=(uniformed services), i.e. military, police, fire brigade, some drafts in #2670, #3035
boundary=protected area #603
amenity= monastery #3036
leisure=dog_park #3041
boundary=aboriginal_lands #3520
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: