[OSM-dev] wrong redering of tunnels on the main site after the change of rendering rules

Peter Wendorff wendorff at uni-paderborn.de
Tue Oct 15 06:41:27 UTC 2013

Am 15.10.2013 07:54, schrieb Maarten Deen:
> On 2013-10-15 04:51, Michael Kugelmann wrote:
>> On 14.10.2013 10:52, Maarten Deen wrote:
>> On 2013-10-14 10:34, Michael Kugelmann wrote:
>> Hello,
>> while the weekend I stumbled accross the old Elbe tunnel at Hamburg
>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Pauli-Elbtunnel
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Tunnel_%281911%29
>> and how it is rendered on the main OSM site (mapnik style):
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=53.5439&mlon=9.9665#map=16/53.5439/9.9665
>> It looks like a road going above the water...   :-(
>> For me the tagging seems to be all right (level, tunnel, etc, all is
>> set) but maybe that the new rendering rules are not correct when the
>> tunnel is below water? Could someone please investigate? Thanks.
>> What do you expect to see? That the tunnel is not rendered when it is
>> below a waterbody? Usually tunnels only have a very blurred/bright color.
>> Please have a look to a normal tunnel like eg. the Engelbergtunnel:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=48.7933&mlon=9.0237#map=15/48.7933/9.0237
>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbergtunnel
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelberg_Tunnel
>> There the tunnel can hardle be seen on the rendering.
>> In the case of the Elbe Tunnel (under water) the road has the same (or
>> almost the same) color as it would be "above the water". For me this
>> really confuses.
>> That has never been the case. Tunnels under water have always been
>> rendered the same way they look when under a landmass: lighter in
>> color and dashed lines.
>> Please compare Engelbergtunnel (landmass) to Elbe-Tunnel. This can't
>> be the same. Maybe the additional access control flags on the Elbe
>> Tunnel cause the problem, I don't know.
>> Compare the Zeeburgertunnel in Amsterdam (natural=coastline):
>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=53.5439&mlon=9.9665#map=16/52.3737/4.9748>
>> Or the Gouwe-Aquaduct (natural=water)
>> <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=53.5439&mlon=9.9665#map=19/52.02548/4.66688>
>> both are fine but could be even a litte more bright (IMHO).
>> But if you compare these two against the Elbe-Tunnel you can see that
>> the Elbe tunnel is not at all that bright and "hidden".
> If you look closely, you'll see that the colors do differ and that the
> line at the edge is dashed. It is probably because it is a tertiary road
> which is rendered in light yellow that the difference is small.
> Normal tertiary road is rendered in #F8F8BA, as a tunnel it is #F9F9D0.
> The difference is small, but it is present. Maybe the difference in
> color could be greater, but that's the only issue that exisits. It is
> rendered differently.

Nevertheless it LOOKS the same - or at least VERY similar. Being
rendered differently doesn't matter, I think, as you have to look twice
(if that's enough) to see it's a tunnel.
One issue here are the very similar colors (as you said), the other one
IMHO is the dotted tunnle casing (under water) which is nearly invisible
against the water body. This leads to the tunnel looking like a usual
street as ONLY the color differs VERY SLIGHTLY.


More information about the dev mailing list