heath

It may be easier to change heath - especially as it was planned anyway ( https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/780 ).

I found way to do this and created https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1733

It is not fixing collision with natural=wetland, wetland=bog/string_bog - but at least half of the problem would be gone.

I will slightly reduce railway weight on z7.

Comparison images (version at time of publishing this diary entry, slightly reduced weight, strongly reduced weight).

I am also thinking about reducing road weight at z7.

z7 http://imgur.com/a/e1nxk#0 (all images together) http://imgur.com/oSTUcZH http://imgur.com/ph6KTTA http://imgur.com/Yk7YAFW http://imgur.com/7wLLuI2 http://imgur.com/l67uJOt http://imgur.com/wPbbzdM http://imgur.com/waXn5DS http://imgur.com/9d2J1HR http://imgur.com/fJc5Sf3 http://imgur.com/y76lF7H http://imgur.com/sDhU3bl http://imgur.com/tsPwttf

z8 http://imgur.com/a/0kRDq#0 (album) http://imgur.com/Gzoebbn http://imgur.com/nLNmVvi http://imgur.com/I4KxJ4x http://imgur.com/iRrY7Uv http://imgur.com/N231TRg http://imgur.com/b310i3u http://imgur.com/NnfTYKi http://imgur.com/Hu684o2 http://imgur.com/cG8FCLT http://imgur.com/rgLOUNd http://imgur.com/ssWgKal http://imgur.com/f4BfTca

secondary shield color is fairly close to heath color

Thanks for noticing this! Now lets find secondary road through heath…

For pedestrian areas - you could try something slightly blueish

I am worried about collision with water. See way/183484612#map=19/53.56759/20.98945 or way/172671466#map=18/54.44740/18.57716 for nearly the worst case.

I dislike the suggested pedestrian style - it looks like a building. Take the carto css default pic how can you or anyone tell if it is pedestrian or a building for the far right.

I agree - current scheme for pedestrian/living street is illogical and this version has horrifically ugly pedestrian areas (current version has horrifically ugly living_street areas, but this is a rare feature).

It needs to be lightened up a bit IMHO.

Unfortunately once it i lightened that it looks OK it is too close to landuse=residential. I will try once more - maybe I will find something that is merely ugly and not to close to this landuse.

Personally i think living streets should be more like residential roads. I am not sure why you think the are like pedestrian walkways.

As mentioned - living_street are something between highway=residential and highway=living_street. In some places closer to highway=pedestrian in some to highway=residential (depends on national laws, location and other factors).

Actually I would like some pattern paving for pedestrian ways a map image a bit like (only time for a quick Google) http://www.kspaving.co.uk/graphics/KSPavingLogo.gif

I am dubious whatever patterns will work.

I find the highway shields to be overly prominent in the new style

New shields:

sightly lighten the railways

@imagico - I am now checking how z7, z8 will look like with subtler railways.

Did these screenshots incorporate the railroad service changes shown later?

Yes, but I am using outdated data.

As mentioned - “missing data that is causing poor rendering of railways in Antwerp is now fixed”

I am using https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2015-July/028625.html for global rendering that is based on the planet dump from 150202.

I find the highway shields to be overly prominent in the new style

Yes, shields may be toned down (added to TODO list).

When can we expect to see the new style implemented on the main map?

Part is already used on osm website (minor rail and minor roads mid-zoom levels), part is ready and waits for merging and part will be ready for final testing within days.

In many places it is just not clear what should be mapped as landuse=residential because it is not obvious on the ground.

I think that overall consensus is that mapping landuse=residential makes sense. It is possible to improve wiki, but this probably should be discussed on wiki or tagging mailing list.

On the other hand the residential streets clearly exist on the ground an therefore should be rendered even at z12!

In the end highway=residential roads are visible on z12, but thinner than before.

I’m really not convinced that comparing with Google Maps is helpful.

I am not trying to turn default style in clone of Google Maps. I used this comparison because for cities around z10 Google Maps style works better than other.

I would not use GMaps as good example of handling places where its results are not better than OSM, like more remote areas.

In Google’s world bright orange makes sense, since thery’re showing relatively few classes of features, and a largely four-colour map makes sense.

Google is keeping its base map in limited color range as it allows to nicely place additional data on it (overlays, search results, ads etc). Humanitarian is also designed to make easy to add overlays.

Default OSM map is not doing something like that - but as there is massive amount of other features (see https://github.com/matkoniecz/CartoCSSHelper/blob/master/lib/cartocss_helper/style_specific/default_osm_style.rb for list of displayed tags), most of them displayed in unique style I think that it is also better to not use highly varied colors for one feature. Roads are currently using blue, green, red, orange, yellow, white, gray, dark gray and brown what I think may be limited without hurting readability and usability.

However the bigger problem is that the OSM Standard Style tries to be both “a nice map” and “part of the mapper feedback loop” - given the level of detail that’s being mapped in some places now I don’t see how it can do both.

Yes, in many cases these goals are opposed. But selecting information that should be displayed is always necessary. Even JOSM is not rendering all popular tags.

I guess that you’re limited by what would work technically as a style on osm.org now

Yes, but for now it was not really problematic.

Would transparent overlays be in or out on that basis?

Transparent overlays that may be added/removed like data layer and notes layer? That would require changed on OSM website and is not planned as part of GSoC.

Just a quick search.

Thanks!

That’s fine for them, but it’s not something we should seek to emulate.

It is not my intention to copy it, but in some areas (mid zoom levels in cities) it is clearly better.

I’d argue quite strongly that the Google maps style assumes people only use cars.

Yes, for example railways are nearly invisible. It is not something that I would want on Default OSM map.

I would love to bug test this style, are there any test servers?

At this moment - no. There are still many things that are known to be unfinished, untested or not working. Test server is planned, but it is still too early.

I would love to bug test, are there any test tile servers?

At this moment - no. There are still many things that are known to be unfinished, untested or not working. Test server is planned, but it is still too early.

They may be running through the natural=sand however (for example in some areas of Africa).

Can you maybe give an example where this happens? It is worth testing.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/elegantfigures/2013/09/10/subtleties-of-color-part-6-of-6/

Thanks!

give up the idea of using the same color for high zoom casing and for low zoom fill

I am not considering it as important, in fact I already abandoned it. It was just the starting point.

try tweaking the farmland color

I am currently trying to do this.

beach

At least roads through beaches are rare.

For rail, I have liked the crosshatch-on-lines style used by USGS

From what I have seen at http://store.usgs.gov/b2c_usgs/usgs/maplocator/%28ctype=areaDetails&xcm=r3standardpitrex_prd&carea=%24ROOT&layout=6_1_61_48&uiarea=2%29/.do it is not better than even current rendering.

It has worse results at places with many railways and about the same otherwise.

house omission tint

It seems to work more or less like landuse=residential.

showing unpaved on residential/unclassified and up

I have happy new! See @Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35416 - the previous diary entry about potential rendering of surface tag.

BTW, it seems that I forgot to post about entry about pave/unpaved to @talk.

I have to say i lost track with all your different color scheme variants.

@Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35351 is the first one and the only one among old ones that is worth checking (other are gradual evolution toward one published here or experiments)

Some of your new examples look much too strong in color for my taste.

Yes, unfortunately many version that were not so saturated failed to be properly visible. It turns out that finding styling that will be noticeable on farmland, unmapped area - especially in places where landcover is highly varied (my testing location for that purpose osm.org/#map=13/48.8487/21.1162 ).

Then started to test it on people with a bit worse eyesight.

Overall, as testing progressed it was getting more and more saturated to keep roads visible. Redesigning all landuse colors to be progressively paler on lower zoom levels (that is where problems happen) is starting to become attractive.

And I am scared to even think how bad results would be after testing it with somebody that has color blindness.

the well known rainbow palette syndrome

Is it about “help, why they used all possible colors” problem or something more complicated? In that second case - can you give me pointer where I can find more about this specific problem (I found only https://eagereyes.org/basics/rainbow-color-map that seems to not be relevant - I am using white and gray for the minor roads, later hue is changing across relatively narrow range from yellow to red).

currently rendering of the natural earth builtup areas at z=8/9 is brighter than the landuse=residential at higher zooms so it will probably not work so well to darken this at the intermediate zooms

I thought about changing also natural earth builtup areas.

Unifying the different landuses (residential/commercial/retail/industrial) into a common gray at z=10/11 might be a good idea though.

Added to list of good ideas.

scale variation in the map

Point for options “get rid of all buildings on z12” and “keep all of the”.

size of actual buildings follows a very distinct statistical distribution

Huh. Yet another interesting thing where my googling failed. Pointer to sources would be great and welcomed.

But this will of course fail badly with a way_area cutoff due to the scale variation in the map.

Yes, living on flat earth would really simplify map making.

Kudos for the tertiaries rendered as same color but slightly wider - I believe declutters while not degrading readability.

Hopefully it will stay as one feature that is generally liked :)

z12 is middle scale and the most important shapes here are lines (roads, railways), landuses/natural areas (water, forest, residential, industrial, military, fields, airports…) and names of cities/towns/villages. Individual buildings just don’t belong here - their generalized “pattern” is just landuse area.

It is more or less my opinion, Purposes of this map are unlike Humanitarian and Google maps that are designed to allow overlaying additional layers on top. At this moment, especially around z10 the problem is not displaying not enough - it is displaying too much (https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1630 has related discussion).

Even after changes map would display far more data that Google maps. In many places that would be still too much but at least typical location would be readable (pictured z12 in London, Goggle maps and new road style with - in version keeping only big buildings).

Currently they are just places of worship, but it’s way too narrow and we should expand it with other public building types

Yes, at this moment it is unfortunately not enough to use this layer as it is too slow. And even now it leads to the same problem with places that have small places of worship (though I have yet to find place with huge number of small PoW).

Have you looked into the possibility of using a grained fill pattern to indicate unpaved roads?

No, I still need to test this.

For z=12 i think if you don’t show minor roads you also should not show buildings.

Yes, buildings result in a noise. But maybe keeping the biggest ones makes sense? I am still testing it and it seem that keeping buildings larger than 2px/2.5px/3px is optimal.

One commonly used trick is to use dashed casing for tunnels while removing the stroke entirely.

Probably it will make tunnels nearly invisible but it is worth trying.

translucent stroke for tunnels

Transparency leads to uncontrolled results with so many displayed landuses so it is better to avoid it.

It is anyway rather problematic in many cases how it is mapped.

In general, in many places it is simply not mapped. I am not aware about incorrect and hard to fix misuse of landuse=residential that is so widespread that stopping rendering it would be a good idea.

Source code available via dropbox, here.

I would strongly recommend using git repository for code. There is available an excellent free hosting of git repositories in Github, Bitbucket and other sites.