Update zoom levels by height for masts, towers and telescopes #3536
Conversation
Use height to set zoom level for obelisk & monument and adjust mast & tower zoom so that it is consistent Start at z14 for >160m, z15 for >80m, z16 for >40m etc Communications towers and radio telescopes will also start at z14 rather than z13 Remove redundant water and wastewater plant lines Remove white space from telescope code
kocio-pl
changed the title
|
Testing tuning is usually harder than adding, because it means deeper understanding of changes, so this is rather low on my queue priority. I made the title shorter to be easier to read. |
|
Do we know how many obelisks or monuments even have the height tag? It might not worth adding the extra code just to make them consistant with towers if none (or to little) of them use it. |
|
Taginfo doesn't record this, so I used overpass-turbo in a couple of mid-sized, well-mapped countries which I expected to contain obelisks: Germany and Italy. In Germany, height=* is used with man_made=obelisk 64 times on nodes and ways, while man_made=obelisk is used 139 times over all. In Italy 52 have height, vs 110 overall. So it's over 40%, much higher than I expected. There are only 516 uses of man_made=obelisk overall (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made=obelisk) but format=obelisk is used 663 times?! https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/format=obelisk Height is used with historic=monument 443 times on nodes in Germany versus 593 overall = 75% But in Italy its' 693 out of 17805 nodes and ways; only 4%. This suggests Italy may be tagging many smaller historic=memorial as historic=monument. https://overpass-turbo.eu example query:
|
|
Good question. Both less than 1k uses, so it's not visible on Taginfo: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/historic=monument#combinations However it can be estimated closer - I suck at interpreting Overpass Turbo output, but it's about 600 monuments: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/E96 and - well - one (1) obelisk: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/E97 So only monument code makes sense at the moment. They tend to be high (we probably don't count other measures. like object volume) and dominating, yet not always visible early enough, like: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/21.8371/73.7196 or some other big ones: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Height_comparison_of_notable_statues.png |
|
Oh, I see: format=obelisk is used 421 times in Germany, mainly for milestones and boundary stones, eg: |
This is incorrect because you did the query with a bounding box: This finds 88 monument nodes and ways in Poland with height, vs 3008 overall. Either Poland has more monuments than German, or most are mistagged historic=memorial, as in Italy. I accidentally searched most of the world by bounding box using your link, and found about 4619 monuments with height, so about 8% are tagged with height globally - but as I mentioned, many "monuments" should be tagged as memorials. Germany seems to have cleaned this up the most. |
|
I took the whole Earth as bbox, as you can see opening the link. If you were right, height would be probably visible on https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/historic=monument#combinations, isn't it? This way or another, I consider monuments to be a valid case. |
|
I've updated the PR by changing the height for monuments and obelisks. After researching these objects, I found that there are very few monuments over 80m and only a handful over 160. Most monuments are in the 10 to 30m range, when it is tagged. Even in Washington DC there is only 1 over 39m of height. Most obelisks are under 20m, but there are a number between 20-40m, and a couple dozen over 40m and 80m. Only the Washington Monument is over 160m. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisk So the majority of monuments and obelisks with render the same before and after this PR. I've found a few examples with great enough height to change: Obelisk, 25m tall - renders at z17 before, z16 after Monument, Bismarkturm, 45m tall - currently renders at z16, would render at z15 after Monument, "Hall of Liberation", 47.5m tall |
|
Here's a nice test of a really huge monument in a big city: the Monas, Jakarta (Monument Nasional). It's 132 meters tall, almost as tall as the Washington Monument.
With this PR it would first render at z14 instead of z16: Jakarta z14 after Jakarta z15 after Jakarta z16 - same |
|
Buildings and place names start rendering at z14. I cant think of any icon that does off the top of my head. So, I think thats to early for it. I wouldnt put a monument at the same importance level as a building. Plus, once again, we are trying to clean up those levels. If the icon blocks out a town name or something where it first starts rendering that would be an issus. Would monomunt names be displayed at that level? business and road names arent even yet. Can you do a test rendering of a monument on z14 that's in an area with a bunch buildings instead of the middle of a park? My guess is, it wouldnt work. |
|
I also noticed that at z15, there is a 35 meter tower that is currently rendering at z15, even though the National Monument does not. With the changes above, this tower would first render at z17 z15 Jakarta - current master |
Please see the initial comment: #3536 (comment) Currently, man_made=communications_tower renders at z13
The icon is not displayed if there is a city or town label in the same place.
No, still at z16 as before
I don't think this is possible. There are no monuments of over 80 meters height (that's over 250 'Merican feet) directly next to buildings, as far as I can tell. These sort of features are usually found in parks. Even 40 meter (130 foot) monuments are rare; the examples I found in Germany were in rural areas or outside of the city in a park. See #3536 (comment) In the United States, the tallest monuments are all found in parks or rural areas; eg the Saint Louis Gateway Arch, Washington Monument, Statue of Liberty, San Jacinto Monument in Houston, etc. Probably the most urban monument over 80m is the Soldier's and Sailors Monument, in a circular plaza in downtown Indianapolis. It's barely over 80m: |
|
Well, taking all that into account, it seems sane to me. I dont think the optical telescope comparison is a good one, but its not enough to say they shouldnt be rendered similarly. Thanks for the extra details. |
|
I downloaded the area around the Soldier's and Sailors Monument in Indianapolis: Indianapolis sure does like monuments; they also have a 30 meter obelisk and a 63 meter World War memorial that looks like the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus in a park just to the north. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_World_War_Memorial_Plaza Before all of these would only will render at z16 because the height was not tagged. I've added height tags. z16 Soldier's and Sailors (same before/after)
z16 World War Memorial and Mall z15 Indianapolis Before z15 After z14 Indianpolis Before z14 After On z15 the icons are smaller than the outline of the monument. |
|
@jeisenbe, is there a good place to find out the height of monuments out there or is it essentially searching through somewhere like Wikipedia/on the ground surveying? |
|
Most have info in Wikipedia, and in developed countries there are often
official sources, eg the National Park Service in the USA
…On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 1:50 PM Adamant36 ***@***.***> wrote:
@jeisenbe <https://github.com/jeisenbe>, is there a good place to find
out the height of monuments out there or is it essentially searching
through somewhere like Wikipedia/on the ground surveying?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3536 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshFQ0-o6CMsgbw0x-BYaiQqj1NRLzks5u1K2TgaJpZM4Y5y6z>
.
|
|
Monument (53 meter tall cross, "Salib Wio Silimo") in the center of Wamena, Indonesia. This will now show at z15 instead of z16 (and I won't be tempted to tag it as man_made=tower instead. ;-) ) Before, z15: After, z15: [OT: I wish the airport icon still rendered at z15, or started rendering on the airport terminal building at z16] |
|
I like idea of changes proposed here and I plan on reviewing how the code works. I prefer to avoid making promises when I will complete this, but hopefully soon. |
|
Re: cranes and chimneys. If @Adamant36 has found any problems with the current rendering of tall chimneys and cranes at z16, I could add a commit to this PR that would address them. Also, I fixed the merge conflict. |
|
I appreciate your willingness to update it. That being said, I wouldnt call map clutter, or the way things look depending how they render, "problems" per say. They aren't bugs. Obviously what looks good or not is up to personal prefrence (at least in these cases). I stated why I think rendering them at z17/z18 versus z16 looks better to me subectively. Along with why your justification of rendering them at z16 "becuase" is bad logic. A few others agreed and you choose to go with your way instead. There was a pretty heated disscussion here a while back about how its on the person doing the PR to justify why their change is good. Not on everyone else to justify why what they want to impliment shouldn't be. I would defer to that. I think it was on the back with bench issue. Although I could be wrong. Other then that, I was pretty clear why I think rendering them at z16 is a bad idea. I'm not going to waste my time going into it again. Especially since you blew it off the first time. Your free to read through it all again. I'm less concered about the particulars of cranes at this point anyway and more just don't like the proccess and unwillingness to engage in feedback on your part in that instance because it wasnt from "maintainers." Its rather dissmisive of how much work people besides them put into the project. Consencious is an important thing, maintainers or not. I know you have a clear idea for how you want things though and that's fine. So I'm willing to accept it and move on if you disagree with me (and the other people who thought z17 was better). Thanks for throwing it out there though. I apologize if I'm being a little brash (honestly). |
|
@Adamant36, you initially said that we should not use height to adjust the zoom level of cranes. (See #3501 (comment)) At that time I had proposed to render them at z14 to z17 based on height (see: #3501 (comment)). dieterdriest and kocio-pl both thought that height was reasonable to use (see #3501 (comment)). I then changed the PR to render cranes only at z16 and 17, two zoom levels later, based on your comments, which renders cranes at the same initial zoom level as chimneys. (see #3501 (comment)) So the final discussion was about that zoom level z16 vs z17, and whether cranes and chimneys should be rendered differently. We disagreed about this, dieterdriest seemed to support the earlier rendering, kocio-pl said he didn't mind either way, and tomasz had previously suggested z17/z18, so there did not seem to be a consensus. Therefore I didn't change the PR. I was going to suggest changing the initial zoom levels of chimneys as well as cranes, if there was a consensus that cranes should not be rendered at z16. (I haven't heard a convincing argument for why cranes should be rendered later than chimneys) If anyone is interested in working on this issue, changes can be made in a systematic way in #3536 |
|
@jeisenbe, I'll think about it. Unfortunately there's a lot of other, higher priority stuff right now that should be dealt with. Plus, its not like there's an abundance of cranes where I live. So I probably won't even notice it that much. I'm definitely down for revisiting it later though once there isn't a bunch of other things and its had some time to be rendered on the map. Even if it can use some adjustment later on, its better its that its rendered then not. So I appreciate you doing the PR. Even if the zoom level discussion didn't workout. |
|
@jeisenbe, if your committed to this you want to add rendering based on height for water towers to? 1,188 of them have the tag. So you might as well. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense that monuments should start rendering at z16 while water towers start at z17. It would at least be good if you either knew what the actual exact height values for each specific thing was for the ranges though or at least had standard height ranges that they all follow. |
|
How many of them are taller than 50m?
They are mainly found in urban and industrial areas, so they should
probably be treated the same as cranes and chimneys, which only render at
z16 if height > 50m
If there are more than a couple hundred of that height it would be worth
considering, but I don’t think it’s worth the trouble if there are only a
few dozen that would be affected.
…On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 1:15 PM Adamant36 ***@***.***> wrote:
@jeisenbe <https://github.com/jeisenbe>, if your committed to this you
want to add rendering based on height for water towers to? 1,188 of them
have the tag. So you might as well. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense that
monuments should start rendering at z16 while water towers start at z17.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3536 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshN0qp8aLXXcJTSB-6AU7-azLNM9Zks5u7GBfgaJpZM4Y5y6z>
.
|
|
I checked overpassturbo.
In Germany there are 183 ways of man_made=water_tower with height, and
about 21 have height > 50. (Very few are tagged as nodes there)
So there are probably 100 to 200 only, if Germany is representative?
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 1:39 PM Joseph Eisenberg <[email protected]>
wrote:
… How many of them are taller than 50m?
They are mainly found in urban and industrial areas, so they should
probably be treated the same as cranes and chimneys, which only render at
z16 if height > 50m
If there are more than a couple hundred of that height it would be worth
considering, but I don’t think it’s worth the trouble if there are only a
few dozen that would be affected.
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 1:15 PM Adamant36 ***@***.***>
wrote:
> @jeisenbe <https://github.com/jeisenbe>, if your committed to this you
> want to add rendering based on height for water towers to? 1,188 of them
> have the tag. So you might as well. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense that
> monuments should start rendering at z16 while water towers start at z17.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#3536 (comment)>,
> or mute the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshN0qp8aLXXcJTSB-6AU7-azLNM9Zks5u7GBfgaJpZM4Y5y6z>
> .
>
|
|
Hhhhmmm, it seems kind of pointless to even add the height value in the first place if they are all shorter then 50 feet. If so, your probably only looking at a 20 foot height difference or something between the tallest and shortest ones. Since they are all off the ground to some degree. Which would be really lame for basing rendering on. |
|
Height=50 means 50 meters, or 164 feet. That’s about 16 floors high.
Most water towers in Germany with height tagged seem to be about 30 meters.
This makes sense; it’s taller than a 10 storey building, so that’s high
enough to provide good water pressure to almost all buildings, which tend
to be 7 storeys or less. Taller buildings require more expensive materials;
eg steel or reinforced concrete.
So I think z17 is a reasonable zoom level for water towers; that’s where we
will be rendering a 21 to 40 meter tall mast or tower.
…On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 3:13 PM Adamant36 ***@***.***> wrote:
Hhhhmmm, it seems kind of pointless to even add the height value in the
first place if they are all shorter then 50 feet. If so, your probably only
looking at a 20 foot height difference or something between the tallest and
shortest ones. Since they are all off the ground to some degree. Which
would be really lame for basing rendering on.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3536 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshAX5q6JcZAlJKDuNMwLn5YwxwRmmks5u7HwggaJpZM4Y5y6z>
.
|
|
I've fixed the merge conflict. This PR is ready for review, I believe. |
|
@Adamant36, if you have a chance perhaps you could fetch this branch and review the cartography, since you were interested in the subject previously? Or do you think it is ok to merge this now, and then consider further changes later, if we want to reduce the initial zoom level another level to z15 instead of just from z13 to z14? |
|
@jeisenbe, I think Im good with it for now. Theres no reason we cant modify it later if need be. Im having problems with docker I need to worked out to. I appreciate that you asked though. |
|
I'm very skeptical about using height as a way to distinguish prominence of monuments. I think it will also complicate our code. I'm also afraid it will make the data harder to use for other consumers (for example because people might start tagging minor poles/needles as obelisks). What do others think? |
|
“people might start tagging minor poles/needles as obelisks”
I’m a little confused by this comment.
Currently a pole can be tagged as a man_made=mast, which renders as soon as
z15 based on height, and power poles render at z16.
Right now the incentive is to tag an obelisk as man_made=tower to get it to
render sooner (as early as z13 for >100m). This change would encourage more
correct tagging for tall obelisks. Short obelisks would be unaffected.
The wiki says an obelisk is a “Tall, narrow, four-sided, tapered monument
which usually ends in a pyramid-like shape at the top. “ without a minimum
specified height. But height=* is a suggested tag.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dobelisk
…On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 12:29 AM Matthijs Melissen ***@***.***> wrote:
I'm very skeptical about using height as a way to distinguish prominence
of monuments. I think it will also complicate our code. I'm also afraid it
will make the data harder to use for other consumers (for example because
people might start tagging minor poles/needles as obelisks).
What do others think?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3536 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshF3FISqt-c2w15O-3kbao6R7l48wks5u_3NfgaJpZM4Y5y6z>
.
|
|
I'm not afraid of that. I'm more concerned about common (mis)practice to tag monument instead of memorial. |
|
One of my hopes is that more people will add height=* tags for monuments,
and then those with height less than 5m or 10m could be reviewed. Probably
most should be historic=memorial.
…On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 10:24 AM kocio-pl ***@***.***> wrote:
I'm not afraid of that. I'm more concerned about common (mis)practice to
tag monument instead of memorial.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3536 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshD5QuVCtWcWh1sAmT1rU34_dJziQks5u__7ggaJpZM4Y5y6z>
.
|
|
That would be great if adding it become more common. By definition not all monuments have to be high (there are also other criteria like that you can walk into), but height tag might help finding mistagged objects. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have had a quick look at this and so far i am not convinced.
The idea of basing importance rating for zoom level decisions on tagged heights was first introduced in #2671. It was somewhat questionable there but at least there was broad use of height tags on most of those (each >10k) and the height of a tower/mast is obviously a major characterizing property.
Still mappers were widely confused by this change and the resulting non-intuitive appearance of towers at different zoom levels. It is not really clear to the mapper when there are towers with maybe dozens of different characterizing tags that the discerning property is the height tag, which in itself is not shown on the map - in particular of course since the height does not affect the prioritization towards other icons. For structures where the height is not by definition the largest dimension this is likely even worse.
I would prefer to go the other way and aim to reduce the complexity in zoom level logic, especially as long as POI icon display prioritization is not in sync with the starting zoom levels. For example the use of telescope:diameter does not make much sense - use numbers in the range of the thresholds used are in the single or two digit range. For man_made=obelisk the numbers are even lower. I would also by the way remove it for waterfalls where height=importance makes no sense at all.
Simplifying the logic for towers and masts i would support as a step in the right direction. Having some data on the number of features in the different height classes would be useful of course.
|
I'm going to reject the pull request as there is apparently no support for it. |
|
@matthijsmelissen - i have not seen any comment rejecting the idea of unifying the zoom level thresholds of masts and towers so if @jeisenbe wants to modify this PR to do just that this would probably be supported (and would probably resolve #3414) |
|
Good point, re-opening. |
matthijsmelissen
changed the title
|
I've removed the changes for monuments and obelisks as requested. Do you want to reopen it, @matthijsmelissen? It's not clear to me if @imagico requested that the changes for telescopes be removed, or if he wants more extensive changes. The current PR removes telescope rendering at z13, to be consistent with towers. Should there be a separate PR to discuss entirely removing rendering based on height for this feature and waterfalls? |
|
I am sorry if that was not clear - i don't think the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks fine now, i have not yet had the time to actually test it.
Although our style guide does not require this for not zoom level related selectors it might make sense to consistently use >= for tag value based selectors as well (currently you have > for towers/masts and >= for telescopes).
jeisenbe
changed the title
|
Good idea, I've pushed a commit with this change. Cranes and chimneys also use |
Fixes #3414
Changes proposed in this pull request:
Adjust mast & tower zoom so that it is consistent
Start at z14 for >160m, z15 for >80m, z16 for >40m etc; this allows masts to be rendered the same as towers, by continuing the masts up to z14 at 160m, moving them 1 zoom level
Communications towers and radio telescopes will also start at z14 rather than z13
Remove white space from telescope code
Start rendering monuments and obelisks at z14 for >80m and at z15 for >40m EDITED: Removed
Explanation
Masts and towers are similar man-made features. While towers may have a heavier structure, masts have support wires which are also visually significant. From a distance towers and masts are both quite visible if they are sufficiently tall, and can serve as orientation points in rural areas. Therefore it is sensible to render them at the same zoom levels.
Currently, towers over 100m tall are rendered at z13. However, buildings are no longer being rendered at this level, so it no longer makes sense to render towers at z13 in the absence of even very large or tall buildings.
160 m is the height of a 45 to 50 storey building; such tall structures are quite rare, even in large cities, so a 160m tower will usually be the tallest man-made object in the area. 80m towers are taller than 20 stores buildings, and 40m towers are taller than 10 stores buildings; these structures are taller than the great majority of structures in towns and cities, while a 20m mast or tower is only the height of an ordinary 6 storey apartment building.
Radio telescopes may also be rendered at z13; this PR will change this initial zoom level to z14 for consistency. Communications towers are assumed to be very tall towers, and will change from z13 to 14.
Monuments are rendered at z16 and obelisks at z17, currently, but these historic or cultural features may be many meters tall. With this PR, monuments and obelisks will be rendered one zoom level sooner than towers and masts of the same height; monuments and obelisks are visually and culturally more significant that most towers and masts.
Test rendering with links to the example places:
Honolulu, Hawaii z13 before
Honolulu z13 after
Zwedru, Liberia
z13 Before
z13 After
Dover, England
z13 Before
z13 After
Southwest of Dover
z14 Before (200m mast not rendered)
After
Washington DC radio towers
z13 Before
After
[EDITED: Obelist/Monument changes removed
Washington Monument (tall obelisk >160m)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/38.88910/-77.03514
z14 Before
z14 After
z16 Before (obelisk not rendered, yet smaller monuments are)
z16 After