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

Nathan Edgars II neroute2 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 29 20:16:35 BST 2010


On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Val Kartchner <val42k at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 15:17 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Val Kartchner <val42k at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Sorry to disappoint, but the 17x17 example that you gave is quite
>> >> > readable.
>> >> Not nearly as readable as a lone 7.
>> >>
>> >> > 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?
>> >> Clutter and legibility.
>> >
>> > Nathan,
>> >
>> > So, your problem is not the size of the shields but the route-type
>> > specific shields themselves?
>>
>> It was never the size, but the way the specific shields cram more into
>> the same area.
>
> This happens because all of the renderers currently use ways to determine
> where to place shields. When we switch over to using route relations (and
> the geometry is very long) Mapnik can be much smarter about where and how
> often to place shields.

I'm not talking about shield placement. I mean that the specific
shield designs themselves are often cluttered. In certain states that
have multiple systems (Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee) it may make
sense to use a simplified version of the shields (although all of
these but Tennessee's primary are already as simple as possible), but
there's no reason except prettiness to prefer the Colorado shield over
a simpler rectangle.



More information about the Talk-us mailing list