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

Different rendering of protected areas by protect_class #3656

Open
GPSLeo opened this issue Jan 25, 2019 · 6 comments

Comments

@GPSLeo
Copy link

commented Jan 25, 2019

With the change that boundary=protected_area is rendered with nearly every protect_class. A nature reserve looks the same like a biosphere reserve. But they are very different the protection is very strong at one and very low at the other. A solution could be to have a different rendering based on the protect_class like the admin_level changes the line of administrative borders.

A potential classification could be:

  • 1,1a,1b,2,3,4 stay at the current rendering
  • 5,7,97 with 50% width of the line
  • 6,98,99 with 50% width and only dotted

@kocio-pl kocio-pl added this to the New features milestone Jan 25, 2019

@my-na-me

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jan 25, 2019

Thank you for opening this topic, I also would like to see some update-changes of the current styling behavior.

Btw, let me point to the German forum, where this is currently also discussed and you can also find different opinions. eg to remove the rending at all, see forum thread auto translated or original

@kocio-pl

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jan 26, 2019

With the change that boundary=protected_area is rendered with nearly every protect_class.

To be precise, it only includes natural protection, which is like 1/3 of them, close in meaning to nature reserves. We have only one proposition for any other protected lands (aboriginal areas - #3521).

A solution could be to have a different rendering based on the protect_class like the admin_level changes the line of administrative borders.

Nice idea. Since we don't use green lines for admin borders, it can work nice with natural features like these.

1,1a,1b,2,3,4 stay at the current rendering

I had also the idea to add green hatching (similar to the military one) for strict protection in 1a.

@jeisenbe

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jan 26, 2019

@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jan 29, 2019

add green hatching

Maybe it will work, but this kind of styling (encountered on some paper maps and in MAPS.ME) really hurts readability.

@jeisenbe

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Feb 2, 2019

@astoff

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Feb 19, 2019

I would like to point out that protect_class=5 requires some special thought. These areas are often huge, and imply fairly lax protection. So they can contain farmland and entire villages or cities. Also, they often appear as buffer zones around national parks and other stricter protected areas.

Some illustrative examples:

In general, I think they are too prominent in the current style. Perhaps they should never be filled. Also, their labels should have lower priority than stricter protected areas, to account for the case of buffer zones.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
6 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.