[Talk-GB] Paths and Footways
ajt1047 at gmail.com
Tue Aug 18 08:20:03 UTC 2015
On 18/08/2015 07:43, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> On 18 Aug 2015 03:56, "Andy Townsend" <ajt1047 at gmail.com
> <mailto:ajt1047 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > There's no interest to do this in the OSM "standard" style because
> it is abundantly clear that any new attempts at changes that make
> rural navigation possible* in OSM-carto would be rejected based on the
> ones that already have been over the last year.
> This is not true, a different rendering based on hiking routes or
> public rights of way is something we could certainly consider.
As I said previously, changes such as this aren't really relevant "if
you can't see the paths themselves at all at a zoom level you'd use for
planning a route over them.".
However, now you're saying "... a different rendering ...". In the
immediately previous message you said:
"So far there is little interest to do this on the OSM default render
style which seems odd to me given how much fuss there has been on this
list to recent changes to the footway/path style (over the last year)!"
It is that was what I was replying to, explaining why there's little
interest to do that on the OSM default render style. Maybe that was
just a trolling question that I shouldn't have replied to late at night
:) Back in
first question I asked was "Are we talking about OSM-Carto here?",
because it was unclear what you were suggesting.
> Please stop antagonizing the default rendering as if it is on a
> mission to make your life as hard as possible, it comes across very
> childish and is a counterproductive way of discussing.
I don't believe that I've ever made _that_ claim :)
> > Although it hasn't been explicitly stated, the direction of travel
> of that style is clear - some people want a map style that's useful
> for navigation, others want something that "looks nice"; based on
> comments on the issues raised it's clear that the people maintaining
> the style are in the latter group rather than the former.
> Not true either - our main criterium for the recent changes is
> "readability", and that definitely includes being able to use the map
> for navigation.
Frankly, that's not what I'm reading from e.g.
As I've said before, one map style can't do everything and a decision to
do X will necessarily be at the expense of Y, although I'd rather it had
been more explicitly stated rather more explicitly. Although
does say "There are multiple primary purposes of the map style, which
pull in different directions", it doesn't say what trade-offs are being
made and why - but maybe that's not the point of that document.
However, if you're now asking about a _different_ rendering, maybe you
need to explain a bit more about what you're proposing? Are you
suggesting an international style available from the osm.org layer
switcher, something maintained by a "GB group" on a separate server, or
something else? Would there be changes to the osm.org website to allow
tiles from it (or another style of the user's choice, such as the
openstreetmap.de one) to be available as a layer?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB