Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Hide underground parkings #3506

Open
Tomasz-W opened this issue Nov 10, 2018 · 27 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@Tomasz-W
Copy link

commented Nov 10, 2018

Continuation of #2904 discussion since #2904 (comment).

Proposition is to render underground parkings (amenity=parking + parking=underground) only as icon of "P" with down arrow.

Test renderings provided by @kocio-pl :

Before:

After:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/235550028

Gist link: https://gist.github.com/Tomasz-W/b9655543be00a01d51c975b03009c654 -> v5

@polarbearing

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 10, 2018

Yes it makes sense to have a separate icon.
I am trying to understand how rendering the area was done in the 'before' situation.
I see some white area changing to green between before/after, but that does not match the outline I see from the way link?
pu

@kocio-pl

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Nov 10, 2018

Before parking color change this was a yellow all around - see #2904 (comment) - so now this is parking grey visible:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230629285#map=18/41.88262/-87.62070
screenshot-2017-11-21 openstreetmap linia millennium lakeside garage 230629285

@jragusa

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 10, 2018

It would be better to even hide this icon for 2 reasons:
1/ it's more important for an underground parking to know where is the entrance (for both pedestrian and cars) than the "centered" location because access are more restricted than for the surface parking.
2/ we will have 2 different icons related to underground parking: this one and those for the entrance (#3505)

@kocio-pl

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Nov 10, 2018

I am also still not sure if we need underground parking icon at all.

By the way - there are more things that we probably should hide for underground parkings:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8452071#map=18/55.75128/37.62905

screenshot_2018-11-10 openstreetmap

@kocio-pl

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Nov 10, 2018

Also related to #552 - and I think we should hide underground buildings.

@polarbearing

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 10, 2018

more things that we probably should hide for underground parkings

I hope you remember that I was against rendering parking_space in general ;-)

Before parking color change this was a yellow all around

OK but I still don't understand why the area south of the word "Jay Pritzker Pavillion" changes from grey to green in the before/after. Why wasn't it green before?

@Tomasz-W

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Nov 10, 2018

I'm wondering what was a source for this area, x-ray ortophoto map or something? ;)

@polarbearing

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 10, 2018

There are some possibilities:

  • copying from architectural drawings
  • taking precise measurements underground with a laser ranger
  • using creative imagination

If no source was given, my guess is the third.

@kocio-pl

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Nov 10, 2018

I hope you remember that I was against rendering parking_space in general ;-)

Still guilty - you were not against rendering "P" letter and parking aisles... 😄

OK but I still don't understand why the area south of the word "Jay Pritzker Pavillion" changes from grey to green in the before/after. Why wasn't it green before?

That's probably because somebody made a small "park" area (it might be a tagging mistake, since the park is probably much larger), which covers all bigger areas:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/470069404#map=18/41.88350/-87.62233

@jeisenbe

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 10, 2018

@Tomasz-W

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Nov 11, 2018

I propose to wait for #3505 merge and then check if rendering just parking entrances would be enough.

@kocio-pl kocio-pl assigned kocio-pl and unassigned kocio-pl Nov 11, 2018

@kocio-pl

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Nov 12, 2018

I have just merged #3505. I'm inclined toward removing underground parking rendering, including icon, area, roads and individual parking places.

@Adamant36

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 13, 2018

Underground roads might be important for places where its going through a tunnel to and from the parking. Outside of that though, I agree the other things could probably be removed.

@kocio-pl

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Nov 13, 2018

Tagging can be different, for example here is just highway=service, but probably it should be tagged as a parking aisle, and we could hide all the parking aisles with location=underground and tunnel=yes:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/340493731#map=19/50.05602/19.93262

screenshot_2018-11-13 openstreetmap

@Adamant36

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 13, 2018

That would work. People don't seem to like using the service road sub tags much because of how thin they render. So whatever we can do to encourage more correct tagging of them.

@polarbearing

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 13, 2018

should be tagged as a parking aisle

No, the access to a parking area is not supposed to be tagged parking_aisle, though this is a common mistake.

A tunnel is by definition underground, and we cannot drop tunnel rendering.

@Tomasz-W

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Nov 13, 2018

The question is how much examples similar to #3506 (comment) we have? If I would map this area, I would add only a ways ending on parking entrance/ exit with one amenity=parking_entrance node, because mapping whole way there is propably just a guesswork.

@polarbearing

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 13, 2018

With the tendency to indoor mapping, this is probably on the increase.

@Adamant36

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 14, 2018

102,219 service roads are tagged with the tunnel tag. Of those, 52,833 are tagged as tunnel=building_passage. So, although the tunnel tag on service roads isn't that prevalent compared to how many there are overall, currently 22,726, 431, a good number number of them are tagged as going under a building. I guess to continue rendering them or not depends on if your going with how many service are mapped underground or how many are mapped mapped as a percentage of the total overall. Personally, I prefer @Tomasz-W's way of mapping them where they end at the building, but that doesn't seem to be how they are being mapped.

@polarbearing

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 14, 2018

Here in Germany, service with tunnel=building_passage is often the driveway through an apartment building to reach the inner yard. Thus they are no specific underground service, and I see no reason to drop rendering them.
passing

@kocio-pl

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Nov 29, 2018

I'm not sure if I was clear - I meant dropping rendering only "parking aisles with location=underground and tunnel=yes" ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Dparking_aisle ), and not any road with location=underground and tunnel=yes.

Interesting combinations to consider:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/service=parking_aisle#combinations

  • 12 158 with tunnel=*
  • 4 973 with covered=*

If there are already any with location=underground, it's less than 1000 uses.

@polarbearing

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 30, 2018

Then the main service way, which should be without 'aisle', would remain visible in those underground parkings, which might create confusion. I also doubt that tunnel=yes is correct tagging for underground parking; shouldn't there be a negative level number?

@jragusa

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Nov 30, 2018

@polarbearing yes, only location=underground and level=* should be tagged. tunnel=yes is useless here excepted for access way.

@jragusa

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Dec 21, 2018

parking_underground_after

Once merged, this modification will lead to salutary corrections of nodes erroneously tagged with amenity=parking + parking=underground to amenity=parking_entrance.

@kocio-pl

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jan 3, 2019

Reopening, since there are still more underground parking objects to be hidden - see #3506 (comment) and #3506 (comment) for example.

@kocio-pl kocio-pl reopened this Jan 3, 2019

@kocio-pl

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jan 27, 2019

Since underground parking signs and areas are hidden now, we can deal with the leftovers:

screenshot_2019-01-27 linia 340493731 openstreetmap

screenshot_2019-01-27 openstreetmap

@jragusa

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jan 28, 2019

For the first location, I don't think we can do anything except removing the underground service highway in this case. Removing highway=service with layer=-1 would be cause some side effects elsewhere.

For the second location, we can restrict to amenity=parking_space AND (parking=surface OR parking=null). About highway=service, indoor=yes tag could help.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.