[OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift
Jo
winfixit at gmail.com
Thu Aug 20 10:16:33 UTC 2015
I must admit I never really liked the scheme where motorways get the colour
of water... I also grew up with orange/yellow motorways on the map.
But I (try to) complain as little as possible. So I'm glad people are
trying to come up with a 'more international' way of rendering the map. If
that's even possible.
On the other hand, I don't like that the difference between tertiary and
unclassified/residential disappears almost completely.
I don't have the time and energy to set up a rendering chain, so maybe I
better shut up...
Polyglot
2015-08-20 11:59 GMT+02:00 Paweł Paprota <ppawel at fastmail.fm>:
> What you are proposing is basically design by committee
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee) which is rampant
> everywhere in OSM and kills innovation. Everyone wants to pile on their
> own cause - be it privacy (see the latest pull request on Github
> regarding Gravatar for another viable contender for the Waste of Time
> prize) or some weird anarchy/freedom/whatever world views.
>
> At the same time there's a guy (Mateusz) who took on the task of making
> the default style not suck - so what do people here do? Of course, let's
> discuss this to death until everyone agrees. But then you may find that
> no one wants to work with you on this anymore.
>
> In Poland we have this often-used saying with regards to the political
> or social situation (yeah, we Poles like to complain a lot!) - it sucks
> but at least it's stable!
>
> Paweł
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015, at 11:39, Colin Smale wrote:
> >
>
>
> >
> > That discussion is only a waste of time because people hope that a
> consensus will magically appear. The subject of the discussion is
> absolutely something which deserves air-time. I am not talking about the
> specific case of abandoned railways, but about who has the right to decide
> what data has no place in OSM and order its deletion.
>
>
> > What was that famous line in Animal Farm again?
>
>
> > --colin
>
>
> > On 2015-08-20 10:53, Paweł Paprota wrote:
>
>
> >> I'm taking bets on whether this thread will have more replies than the
> >> "abandoned railroads" (100+ and still going strong!) and win the prize
> >> for the Biggest Waste of Time in OSM for 2015.
> >>
> >> YES WE CAN('T)
> >>
> >> Paweł
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015, at 03:16, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote:
> >>> For those that did not check on Mateusz Konieczny diary entries[1[
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35586]],
> >>> postings to this mailing list and github discussions then the Proposed
> >>> Great Colour Shift might come as a surprise if it is implemented.
> >>>
> >>> According to the github discussion there is an "overwhelming
> consensus"
> >>> [2] on moving from current rainbow colour scheme for roads to a
> >>> red-yellow only scheme. I am unsure of where this overwhelming
> consensus
> >>> formed because I never saw it on this mailing list nor on talk-dev nor
> >>> on announcements, I admit to be an infrequent IRC user but I didn't
> see
> >>> this overwhelming consensus there and so far no one has been able to
> >>> tell me where it formed or where I can find it.
> >>>
> >>> The design goal seems straight forward, to discontinue green and blue
> >>> for roads and move to red and reddish. For this to happen the decision
> >>> was made to shift current primary, secondary and tertiary colours
> >>> "upwards" so primary is now the colour of secondary and secondary the
> >>> colour of tertiary. Leaving tertiary white.
> >>>
> >>> Tertiary instead gets to be wider than residential and unclassified
> >>> roads, but to be able to spot that you need to have it next to them to
> >>> see which is the wider one.
> >>>
> >>> This one simple change of bleaching tertiary however is something I
> find
> >>> to be a great hindrance to mapping efforts, particularly in rural
> areas
> >>> where the roads are isolated and panning over the map, wether in iD or
> >>> using default tiles. Currently it is easy to spot tertiary roads
> snaking
> >>> through valleys and over vast desert plains, they are yellow and the
> non
> >>> tertiary roads are white. Tertiary is significant there as it denotes
> >>> the roads between the villages and towns that are often unpaved but
> >>> still the most important, even the only, road. Lesser white colours
> >>> imply the roads not being between larger settlements although they
> could
> >>> lead to hamlets. The guidelines for mapping in Africa state thus.
> >>>
> >>> Removing the colour from tertiary makes all mapping that much harder
> to
> >>> verify and quality check. Currently it is easy to see if a tertiary
> road
> >>> is broken with a white unclassified bridge, not so in the proposed
> Great
> >>> Colour Shift.
> >>>
> >>> Mateusz has been forthcoming with all changes and done sterling work
> in
> >>> displaying different areas and how they will look. But he acknowledges
> >>> that this change is not beneficial everywhere on the map and now has a
> >>> disclaimer:
> >>>
> >>> "Among potential problems are that it is now harder to recognise road
> >>> type of given road, especially in situation where there is no
> >>> possibility to compare it with other road types.
> >>> Such significant change will be confusing for current users of this
> >>> style.
> >>> UK color coding of roads is well known for many people, for them a new
> >>> style - even assuming that it would be intuitive for them - will be
> less
> >>> useful.)"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The question really arises if this change is beneficial or not for the
> >>> project. Many hours have gone into it and doing CartoCSS on all these
> >>> zoom levels is not trivial. But this is a major shift on the front
> page
> >>> of our website, a blow to those who use the default tiles through uMap
> >>> or similarly and depend on the UK rainbow road style and makes life
> >>> harder for mappers to visually confirm the type of road.
> >>>
> >>> Should this be a new, alternative style instead?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35586
> >>> [2]
> >>>
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1736#issuecomment-130592532
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> talk mailing list
> >>> talk at openstreetmap.org
> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> talk mailing list
> >> talk at openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> > _________________________________________________
> > talk mailing list
> > talk at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20150820/723fc9ec/attachment.html>
More information about the talk
mailing list