[OSM-dev] New Map Style feedback

Andy Robinson ajrlists at gmail.com
Mon Nov 2 10:56:42 UTC 2015


+1

Cheers
Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: Maarten Deen [mailto:mdeen at xs4all.nl] 
Sent: 02 November 2015 08:40
To: dev at openstreetmap.org; talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-dev] New Map Style feedback

On 2015-11-01 18:09, Amaroussi (OpenStreetMap) wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I have been gathering thoughts from the talk-gb list and my main 
> concern now is how the tertiary roads are shown, especially in 
> countries where people map roads according to quality and hierarchy 
> (and there are more than one). In Greece, tertiary roads connect all 
> villages while in Thailand, tertiary roads have an important use in 
> referring to roads with four digit numbers.
> 
> While I believe that the new rendering has potential, I am suggesting 
> that in order to resolve concerns about the portrayal of tertiary 
> roads, the motorways on the mainstream style should be blue, purple or 
> violet instead of the current shade of rose. This would free up rose 
> for trunk roads, red for primary roads and so on until yellow for 
> tertiary.

I agree that the abandonging of the blue for motorways is a bad choice. 
It is not only a british color, motorways are signalled in blue also in lots of other countries in europe.
But that is not really the issue. It is not that a colorscheme should follow the colorscheme of a particular country per se. The current color scheme just makes it hard to distinguish roads. Teritary roads, being white, are all but unrecognizable. Looking at motorways, trunk roads or primary roads, I can not tell one from the other, except when I see two next to eachother.
Furthermore, on high zooms, roads have gotten too fat. It makes the map look bulky.

The colorscheme for roads is defintely a step back from the previous.

Regards,
Maarten

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6173 / Virus Database: 4455/10932 - Release Date: 11/01/15




More information about the dev mailing list