[Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Val Kartchner]

On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 10:11 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:17 AM, Val Kartchner <val42k at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 01:27 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> >> No for state roads in general. Some shields are poorly-designed for
> >> display in a limited number of pixels. For example
> >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colorado_7.svg is four times
> >> the size a simple rectangle would be.
> >
> > Attached are the bitmaps of the shield that is "poorly-designed for
> > display in a limited number of pixels."  The first one is 39x39 pixels,
> > and the second is 20x20 pixels.  Both are quite readable.
> 
> It's actually 17x17 that you want:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Colorado_7.svg/17px-Colorado_7.svg.png
> and this is somewhat harder to make out than Mapnik's 7 in a circle:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=26.6963&lon=-80.1974&zoom=14&layers=M
> And Mapnik's default shield actually has a bit of padding; the number
> itself is in a 13x13 space.

Sorry to disappoint, but the 17x17 example that you gave is quite
readable.  I've attached another 17x17 that is also readable. Since
readability at 17x17 is demonstrably not an issue, what is your real
objection to route-specific shields?

- Val -
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 17px-Colorado_7.png
Type: image/png
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20101027/f58dc4a9/attachment.png>