[OSM-talk] osmarender and mappaint styles

Etienne 80n80n at gmail.com
Fri Oct 20 10:28:53 BST 2006


David
Attached is my working copy of osm-map-features.xml.

It has some additional things in it that may be useful (allotments) but also
has some rubbish and experimental stuff, so don't consider it to be a
production quality file.  You are welcome to pick through it.

A systematic coverage of all map features would be very useful.  Getting the
natural order correct is quite a delicate task (should residential areas go
under or over car parks, should rivers go over or under industrial areas,
etc).

Bear in mind that Andy has been promising to create an all new version of
map features "some time soon".  But a lot of the styles will still be
applicable so what you propose to do wouldn't be a wasted effort.

Etienne


On 10/20/06, David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com> wrote:
>
> Having realised the advantages of landuse and other area properties now I
> know how to use them, I've been doing more with them.
>
> However, I've realised the osmarender styles aren't complete (e.g.
> landuse=allotments, military=range don't render among many others, and
> names
> don't get rendered for parks etc, even if I use a tagged node inside the
> area). I know I can add these (and have). But it seems a waste of effort
> for
> me to do this just for me. If I was to go through the list and add them
> systematically (colours for missing area types, icons for missing node
> types), would this be helpful and can I get it into the osmarender
> release?
> I can prepare a document proposing what colours and icons to use first if
> you like.
>
> Secondly, I think it would be better if the mappaint plugin defalts had
> colours consistent with osmarender (e.g. cycleways are rendered in magenta
> in mappaint and green in osmarender, while footways are green vs brown).
> Again I know (and have) changed these, but I would have thought most
> people
> would want this. mappaint also has a different set of missing area
> renderings (mostly more of them). Again, would it be helpful for me to
> systematically bring these into line? (Note for the future: wouldn't it be
> even better if they used the same style file?)
>
> Personally, I've also found it much more helpful to set mappaint render
> the
> ways wider than the default (river is especially narrow by default, but
> all
> roads), because it is easier to then see the difference between segments
> and
> ways, and see what's missing, especially for dark colours (I'm workng on a
> white background, which I find much more comfortable). What do other
> people
> think about this?
>
> Finally, mappaint apparently renders objects in order, so that coloured
> areas (e.g. a park) obscure linear ways (e.g. a cycleway through the park)
> that happen to be rendered first. osmarender does things in a better order
> so ways overlay areas. Could whoever needs to know, consider this for some
> attention in the mappaint plugin (or would it be in the main JOSM?)
>
> David
>
> PS I've put an example JOSM screenshot at
> http://www.frankieandshadow.com/xref/jsom-example.jpg which shows:
> - allotments rendered in brown (added)
> - park obscuring way (you can see the nodes)
> - parking area not rendered (but node is)
> - thick line for railway, thicker than default for residential, cycleway
> etc.
> etc.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20061020/25c42540/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: osm-map-features.xml
Type: text/xml
Size: 47680 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20061020/25c42540/attachment.xml>


More information about the talk mailing list