[Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

ajt1047 at gmail.com ajt1047 at gmail.com
Tue Jul 14 03:10:13 UTC 2015

On 13/07/2015 17:46, Paul Sladen wrote:
> Any UK-specific rendering is not going to solve the core issue: that
> large numbers of perfectly extent bridges and tunnels are not
> rendered;  Most of these old tunnels in Nottingham are not rendered:
>    "Relation: Tunnels of Nottingham"
>    http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2446849
> It would be preferable to solve the _generic_ problem that affects all
> countries, which solves it for everyone at once, and doesn't risk
> altering colour choices which are (for better or worse) part of OSM's
> current brand image.

This neatly illustrates the problem.  "What gets shown on a map" has to 
be a trade-off - some people want to see what is beneath their feet but 
most, I suspect, will not.  OSM's "standard" map is currently trying to 
be "the primary feedback mechanism to mappers" but also have "clear 
design" (1).  I genuinely don't believe that you can do both well in one 
map style.

I didn't agree at the time with the decision to not render abandoned 
railways that are significant landscape features, but fully understood 
why it was made - unless we're trying to replicate the old Osmarender 
rendering (shows everything, but looks like an explosion in a crayon 
factory) something has to miss the cut.  At about the time that the 
"standard" style stopped being useful to me(2) I stopped using it, so 
for me, Thrapston Viaduct never went away (3).

With regard to what a "GB" map render would show, I know what I'd like 
to see - field boundaries, stiles, public footpaths and bridleways (and 
whether they're over paths or tracks) etc.(4). Public footpaths of 
course are just an "England and Wales" thing, so that's even more 
parochial than "blue motorways" and "green trunk roads".  Unfortunately 
I suspect what I'd choose works well for a certain type of countryside, 
but less well for town centres (which is why (2) happened in the 
standard style in the first place of course), so I suspect that we'd 
soon hit the same sort of issues as the standard style has, with one 
style being pulled in multiple directions.  In the meantime I'll stick 
with (5), render them locally, and shoe-horn those tiles behind osm.org 
as per (6).




(2) This was more about the fact that it stopped rendering footpaths 
clearly at a useful resolution when planning a longer walk.  Also the 
issue as described in 

(3) http://imgur.com/3FS8XMV

(4) http://imgur.com/HL0sCsb

(5) https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style and 


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list