[OSM-talk] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

Greg Troxel gdt at lexort.com
Thu Dec 7 16:04:37 UTC 2017


Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de> writes:

> On Thursday 30 November 2017, Daniel Koc4‡ wrote:
>>
>> I'm thinking about changes in rendering of protected areas on
>> osm-carto and I wanted to give community a hint, because it's a
>> popular kind of objects.
>
>> 1. Currently leisure=nature_reserve (old scheme) and boundary=* (new
>> scheme) are frequently tagged in parallel, and it looks like the old
>> scheme is used as a hack just to make it visible on default map.
>
> Presenting leisure=nature_reserve as an 'old scheme' and 'boundary=*' as 
> a 'new scheme' is a serious mischaracterization.  The tags 
> leisure=nature_reserve, boundary=protected_area and 
> boundary=national_park all started being used around the same time.  
> There is no old and new here.
>
> There are 62k uses of boundary=protected_area and 77k of 
> leisure=nature_reserve and 31k of the combination - which does not 
> really support your idea that the latter is used just as a hack.

I also object to deprecating leisure=nature_reserve.  The protected_area
scheme is too complicated for most people to deal with fully and
leisure=nature_reserve has proved itself to be useful.

>> 2. The old scheme is too generic and it causes visual clutter,
>> because all of the protected areas are displayed at once.
>
> That is frankly just nonsense.  If rendering (or not rendering) features 
> with leisure=nature_reserve, boundary=protected_area or 
> boundary=national_park causes visual clutter in a map depends on if and 
> how you render these features.  That is the responsibility of you as a 
> map designer.  Blaming a tagging scheme for not being able to do that 
> without visual clutter is a bit strange.

Agreed.   To me, the real rendering issue si the lack of showing
protected area, and the tendency to show these features by an edge
marking rather than some kind of fill.

>> 3. New scheme has many classes defined, which would allow us to fine
>> tune the rendering (different zoom levels and only some of them).
>
> Have you looked at if these classes are actually used consistently at 
> the moment?  A tagging scheme with ~25 numerical codes as classes with 
> fairly brief and abstract descriptions is not usually destined for 
> success in OSM.

Agreed.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 162 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20171207/ba288e44/attachment.sig>


More information about the talk mailing list