[OSM-talk] Come back Osmarender, all is forgiven!

[Peter Wendorff]

Hi,
I agree that the render-all-approach is useful in some cases, but - on
which ones?
In low zoom levels (z0-15) it tends to get overwhelmingly cluttered by
features while on the other hand lots of them have to be dropped at
random because of geometric restrictions - there's limited space on the
canvas, and nothing will change that.

In high zoom levels I would like to see something like that, but usually
that's beyond z18, probably even beyond z19.

Perhaps we shouldn't cry to get osmarender back but instead to get a
vector rendering solution for high zoom levels, rendering in the browser
and allowing the user to define what should be rendered and what should
not. I'm not entirely sure how that would look like, but a long list
(with filtering capability) of items to show or hide might be a starting
point, and if you really want you could check all and get your unusable
cluttered map - but you may be able to specify exactly what you want to
see rendered  (and, who knows, perhaps even how it's diplayed).

regards
Peter

Am 23.06.2014 13:56, schrieb SomeoneElse:
> There have been lots of changes to the "standard" style sheet recently
> (e.g. [1]).  The resulting map looks much nicer (farmland and other
> landuse much less glaring, names that really make no sense to be shown
> on a general map aren't).
> 
> There have however been some unintended consequences of the changes.  A
> number of abandoned railways near me were edited from "abandoned" to
> "disused"; I'm guessing that it might be because of the recent changes. 
> Changeset comments along the lines of "changed to X so that it renders"
> and "I know we're not supposed to tag for the renderer but what's the
> point in mapping a feature which then doesn't appear" are relatively
> common.
> 
> The question, I suspect is what is the "Standard" style on the OSM
> website for?  It used to be "for mappers, but a nice rendering; one that
> you might actually use as a punter too".  Back when Osmarender [3]
> existed, that was the "if you want to see everything render, look at the
> instead" option.  The removal of features (see [2]) that people actually
> use means that the Standard style isn't really "for mappers" any more -
> it's a nice (very nice, actually) generic map style, but not one that
> you can use to make sure that what you've mapped is "technically
> correct" (e.g. joined polygons up properly).
> 
> So, where's the replacement for Osmarender?  I'm sure that someone,
> somewhere, will have created a CartoCSS style file that is much closer
> to "show everything" than openstreetmap-carto currently is. Currently
> for my own use I'm still using the standard style but at database update
> adding back in some of the recent removals (see [4] - it also does some
> England and Wales rights-of-way stuff). However, as the "standard" style
> becomes "nicer" it's becoming increasingly clear that it's not the best
> place to start from.  The question is, what is?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Andy
> 
> [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-June/069959.html
> 
> [2] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542
> 
> [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmarender
> 
> [4]
> https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>