[OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?
rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com
Sun Jan 6 10:56:48 GMT 2013
Thanks for the initial feedback. I also had one off list in support of the
light green. Please keep them coming.
I will play with a couple more shades this evening and post an update.
On Sunday, 6 January 2013, Eugene Alvin Villar <seav80 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I prefer landuse areas to be darker than the default light gray
background color in the Standard rendering. This makes it obvious
(especially on LCD screens where lightness/luminance of colors vary
depending on the viewing angle) that there is a tagged area there.
> You could make the case that the farmuse area could be lighter than it is
now and/or use a different hue than brown, but don't make it as light as
the default background color.
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com>
>> Hi All,
>> (full text and images at
>> Recently landuse=farmland (or simply landuse=farm) has been added to
fields near me. This has led to a discussion about how the rendering
'looks' with some arguing that it doesn't look that good. I believe that
this may be due to the shade of colour used – specifically the farmland
'brown' is not as luminous as the default 'grey' (actually I think it
'lightness' rather than 'luminosity' that matters to the human eye but I
got very confused when searching the two).
>> Consider the image below, showing current rendering:
>> On the left we have farmland tagged. The 'brown' has a Lightness value
of 83 percent (luminance of 85%). Compare this to the default canvas
'grey', which has 93 percent Lightness (and 93 percent luminance).
>> Now consider the following (and please check your screen calibration at
http://www.photofriday.com/calibrate.php ). I have taken the farmland
'brown' and raised it's Lightness to the same 93 percent as the default
'grey' (that is, I have left the Hue and Saturation the same):
>> In this final image, I have adjusted the Hue and Saturation to provide
more of a 'green':
>> What are your thoughts? Which do you prefer? Have I gone too 'light'
with the change and should some value in-between be used instead? Am I
barking up the wrong tree?
>> Note: To focus discussion I want to avoid the argument that some people
see farmland as the default and therefore it does not need to be tagged –
it is a legitimate land-use tag and if people want to tag it then let them.
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk