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

Add rendering for some landuse and natural values #545

Open
matthijsmelissen opened this Issue May 20, 2014 · 64 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@matthijsmelissen
Collaborator

matthijsmelissen commented May 20, 2014

The following landcover types are currently not rendered:

It would be nice to have these tags rendered.

@Klumbumbus

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Klumbumbus

Klumbumbus commented May 20, 2014

natural=wetland is rendered. See http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/276099816

@matthijsmelissen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matthijsmelissen

matthijsmelissen May 20, 2014

Collaborator

Thanks, didn't realize that one was in the water file rather than the landcover file. Removed.

Collaborator

matthijsmelissen commented May 20, 2014

Thanks, didn't realize that one was in the water file rather than the landcover file. Removed.

@Rovastar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Rovastar

Rovastar May 20, 2014

Contributor

natural=sand is also rendered.

Here is a quick change I just did on a golf course
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.53682/-2.24720

Contributor

Rovastar commented May 20, 2014

natural=sand is also rendered.

Here is a quick change I just did on a golf course
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.53682/-2.24720

@matthijsmelissen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matthijsmelissen

matthijsmelissen May 20, 2014

Collaborator

Yes I noticed, I removed it already.

Collaborator

matthijsmelissen commented May 20, 2014

Yes I noticed, I removed it already.

@dieterdreist

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dieterdreist

dieterdreist May 21, 2014

2014-05-20 17:21 GMT+02:00 Rovastar notifications@github.com:

natural=sand is also rendered.

"sand" is IMHO not a good value for natural, as it is not a geographic
feature but a surface / material. Using the landcover key (or surface in
some cases) would be better. E.g. natural=beach & landcover=sand

landuse=quarry seems to be rendered already.

dieterdreist commented May 21, 2014

2014-05-20 17:21 GMT+02:00 Rovastar notifications@github.com:

natural=sand is also rendered.

"sand" is IMHO not a good value for natural, as it is not a geographic
feature but a surface / material. Using the landcover key (or surface in
some cases) would be better. E.g. natural=beach & landcover=sand

landuse=quarry seems to be rendered already.

@Rovastar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Rovastar

Rovastar May 21, 2014

Contributor

I am not sure justification for natural=beach being natural but not natural =sand.
Landcover is another issue entirely. Personally I think landuse and landcover is just semantics and they should be are are used interchangeably sand, grass, etc. But this is the wrong palce for this discussion.
Do we even use landcover in cartocss?!

Contributor

Rovastar commented May 21, 2014

I am not sure justification for natural=beach being natural but not natural =sand.
Landcover is another issue entirely. Personally I think landuse and landcover is just semantics and they should be are are used interchangeably sand, grass, etc. But this is the wrong palce for this discussion.
Do we even use landcover in cartocss?!

@imagico

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@imagico

imagico May 22, 2014

Collaborator

Add to that natural=bare_rock, see #298.

Collaborator

imagico commented May 22, 2014

Add to that natural=bare_rock, see #298.

@daganzdaanda

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@daganzdaanda

daganzdaanda Jun 22, 2014

Maybe also worth rendering is natural=shoal, even if it's not used a lot yet.

daganzdaanda commented Jun 22, 2014

Maybe also worth rendering is natural=shoal, even if it's not used a lot yet.

@PauloCarvalhoRJ

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@PauloCarvalhoRJ

PauloCarvalhoRJ Jul 19, 2014

It would be nice to have landuse=salt_pond because there is a salt production region near where I live. It bothers me to see big blank map as if there were nothing on OSM.

PauloCarvalhoRJ commented Jul 19, 2014

It would be nice to have landuse=salt_pond because there is a salt production region near where I live. It bothers me to see big blank map as if there were nothing on OSM.

@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matkoniecz

matkoniecz Jul 20, 2014

Collaborator

I would tag salt ponds as landuse=industrial, with industrial=salt_pond (or maybe man_made=salt_pond)? landuse=salt_pond is extremely specific (though, unfortunately it seems to be frequently used - over 4k instances on taginfo).

Collaborator

matkoniecz commented Jul 20, 2014

I would tag salt ponds as landuse=industrial, with industrial=salt_pond (or maybe man_made=salt_pond)? landuse=salt_pond is extremely specific (though, unfortunately it seems to be frequently used - over 4k instances on taginfo).

@PauloCarvalhoRJ

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@PauloCarvalhoRJ

PauloCarvalhoRJ Jul 20, 2014

@mkoniecz Thanks for the suggestion.

PauloCarvalhoRJ commented Jul 20, 2014

@mkoniecz Thanks for the suggestion.

@daganzdaanda

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@daganzdaanda

daganzdaanda Jul 21, 2014

landuse=plant_nursery is also missing, see #187.

daganzdaanda commented Jul 21, 2014

landuse=plant_nursery is also missing, see #187.

@matthijsmelissen matthijsmelissen added this to the New features milestone Aug 18, 2014

@vyskocil

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vyskocil

vyskocil Sep 4, 2014

natural=fell (or similar) is needed for medium alpine area above the tree line but not already bare_rock

vyskocil commented Sep 4, 2014

natural=fell (or similar) is needed for medium alpine area above the tree line but not already bare_rock

@thor

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thor

thor Sep 15, 2014

Regarding natural=fell, is there anything in particular one can contribute with?
Visually speaking it's a tag that seems appropriate to render with a colour slightly grayer than grass, with perhaps a symbolic/pattern of sorts indicating the uneven-ness of the area itself?

thor commented Sep 15, 2014

Regarding natural=fell, is there anything in particular one can contribute with?
Visually speaking it's a tag that seems appropriate to render with a colour slightly grayer than grass, with perhaps a symbolic/pattern of sorts indicating the uneven-ness of the area itself?

@matthijsmelissen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matthijsmelissen

matthijsmelissen Sep 15, 2014

Collaborator

Not at the moment, I think. We should first roll out #947, which makes all the landcover labelling consistent. After that, we will need to look at the colours of the existing landcovers, and I think only after that is done it makes sense to start thinking about the colours/rendering of new landcover.

Collaborator

matthijsmelissen commented Sep 15, 2014

Not at the moment, I think. We should first roll out #947, which makes all the landcover labelling consistent. After that, we will need to look at the colours of the existing landcovers, and I think only after that is done it makes sense to start thinking about the colours/rendering of new landcover.

@thor

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thor

thor Sep 15, 2014

@math1985 understandable! With that in mind, is there any particular issues except for #947 that people could help with; with regards to colours of existing landcovers, does any overview/table of the various mappings exist?

Basically, how can a CSS-experienced OSM-addict help, if possible? 👍

thor commented Sep 15, 2014

@math1985 understandable! With that in mind, is there any particular issues except for #947 that people could help with; with regards to colours of existing landcovers, does any overview/table of the various mappings exist?

Basically, how can a CSS-experienced OSM-addict help, if possible? 👍

@matthijsmelissen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matthijsmelissen

matthijsmelissen Sep 15, 2014

Collaborator

Sorry, I gave the wrong issue, I meant #941 rather than #947 (although probably both should be rolled out first).

does any overview/table of the various mappings exist?

The code can be found here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/landcover.mss
A picture of the current rendering: https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/5251909/4258446/def475f0-3ad2-11e4-81c9-b3d7c519aac9.png

All colours with a Lch vaue commented have been reviewed recently. All others still need reviewing. Some, like desert, look particularly bad. It would be nice if we could give all or most colours the same lightness, while still being able to distinguish them.

If you're looking for a small project, you could start with the sports colours. See also #919 for that.

Another thing that needs to be done is changing the landcover images so that they are a factor of 2 wide/tall, see #937 - but see also #938.

Probably not everything is documented as clear as it could be, but if you have any questions, let us know and we will clarify.

Collaborator

matthijsmelissen commented Sep 15, 2014

Sorry, I gave the wrong issue, I meant #941 rather than #947 (although probably both should be rolled out first).

does any overview/table of the various mappings exist?

The code can be found here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/landcover.mss
A picture of the current rendering: https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/5251909/4258446/def475f0-3ad2-11e4-81c9-b3d7c519aac9.png

All colours with a Lch vaue commented have been reviewed recently. All others still need reviewing. Some, like desert, look particularly bad. It would be nice if we could give all or most colours the same lightness, while still being able to distinguish them.

If you're looking for a small project, you could start with the sports colours. See also #919 for that.

Another thing that needs to be done is changing the landcover images so that they are a factor of 2 wide/tall, see #937 - but see also #938.

Probably not everything is documented as clear as it could be, but if you have any questions, let us know and we will clarify.

@matthijsmelissen matthijsmelissen changed the title from Render additional landuse to Add rendering for some landuse and natural values Sep 24, 2014

@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matkoniecz

matkoniecz Jan 10, 2015

Collaborator

natural=dune conflicts with more widely used natural=sand, is used on areas less than 800 times, never went through any kind of approval process. I would suggest dropping it from this list.

Collaborator

matkoniecz commented Jan 10, 2015

natural=dune conflicts with more widely used natural=sand, is used on areas less than 800 times, never went through any kind of approval process. I would suggest dropping it from this list.

@matthijsmelissen

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matthijsmelissen

matthijsmelissen Jan 10, 2015

Collaborator

natural=dune conflicts with more widely used natural=sand

And with natural=scrub, depending on the type of dunes. See here.

Collaborator

matthijsmelissen commented Jan 10, 2015

natural=dune conflicts with more widely used natural=sand

And with natural=scrub, depending on the type of dunes. See here.

@polarbearing

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@polarbearing

polarbearing Jan 11, 2015

Contributor

The problem is that natural formations are mixed with the substances in the tags. Beach can be sandy or stony, dune can be sand or nicely grown over with dune grass.

Contributor

polarbearing commented Jan 11, 2015

The problem is that natural formations are mixed with the substances in the tags. Beach can be sandy or stony, dune can be sand or nicely grown over with dune grass.

@dieterdreist

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dieterdreist

dieterdreist Jan 14, 2015

2015-01-11 1:01 GMT+01:00 polarbearing notifications@github.com:

The problem is that natural formations are mixed with the substances in
the tags. Beach can be sandy or stony, dune can be sand or nicely grown
over with dune grass.

+1, this is clearly a tagging problem. natural=sand/mud/bare_rock are "bad"
because they are describing properties of an object rather than a class of
object, thereby creating tagging conflicts/incompatibilities. They should
go under another key where they would fit, e.g. "surface" or "landcover".
Unfortunately these tags are rendered currently and there are presets for
them, so that mappers are encouraged to continue using them.

dieterdreist commented Jan 14, 2015

2015-01-11 1:01 GMT+01:00 polarbearing notifications@github.com:

The problem is that natural formations are mixed with the substances in
the tags. Beach can be sandy or stony, dune can be sand or nicely grown
over with dune grass.

+1, this is clearly a tagging problem. natural=sand/mud/bare_rock are "bad"
because they are describing properties of an object rather than a class of
object, thereby creating tagging conflicts/incompatibilities. They should
go under another key where they would fit, e.g. "surface" or "landcover".
Unfortunately these tags are rendered currently and there are presets for
them, so that mappers are encouraged to continue using them.

@fkv1

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fkv1

fkv1 May 3, 2015

What's up with natural=fell now? If you can't decide how to render it, you may treat it as a synonym for natural=grassland or landuse=meadow. That's better than leaving the areas white.

fkv1 commented May 3, 2015

What's up with natural=fell now? If you can't decide how to render it, you may treat it as a synonym for natural=grassland or landuse=meadow. That's better than leaving the areas white.

@imagico

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@imagico

imagico May 3, 2015

Collaborator

The problem of natural=fell is that it is somewhat poorly defined in the wiki and accordingly used for a wide variety of purposes. Areas tagged natural=fell often consist at least in parts of the following:

  • natural=grassland
  • landuse=meadow, meadow=agricultural (i.e. pasture)
  • natural=heath
  • natural=wetland + wetland=bog
  • natural=bare_rock
  • natural=scree
  • geological=moraine

As @dieterdreist explained this is partly due to the mixture of tags for landcovers and landforms we have in OSM. For rendering in the map with a color fill/pattern landcover tags describing the local observable properties of the land surface are better suited than landform tags where definition arises from the context and the boundaries are often blurry - in this case fell in a strict sense refers to the upper lying parts of a hill landscape near the tree line. Practical use of the tag is however much more vague and inconsistent.

natural=tundra has probably been set up to overcome this problem since it does not have the landform component but is purely ecologically defined. It is however also very broad and equally overlaps all of the above tags to some extent.

The most prominent use of natural=fell is probably for alpine tundra where coloring it like natural=grassland might seem appropriate. Due to the broad definition of natural=fell mapping however often is also extremely broad which makes it not so suited for rendering in grassland green like here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1354524
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/197815853
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27869519
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/61374902

These comply with the wiki definition of natural=fell (except the last maybe) but IMO are too diverse to be rendered in grassland color.

From the mapping side i think it would be a better approach to tag alpine vegetation above the treeline as natural=grassland/landuse=meadow/natural=heath with a supplementary tag (alpine=yes or similar)

Collaborator

imagico commented May 3, 2015

The problem of natural=fell is that it is somewhat poorly defined in the wiki and accordingly used for a wide variety of purposes. Areas tagged natural=fell often consist at least in parts of the following:

  • natural=grassland
  • landuse=meadow, meadow=agricultural (i.e. pasture)
  • natural=heath
  • natural=wetland + wetland=bog
  • natural=bare_rock
  • natural=scree
  • geological=moraine

As @dieterdreist explained this is partly due to the mixture of tags for landcovers and landforms we have in OSM. For rendering in the map with a color fill/pattern landcover tags describing the local observable properties of the land surface are better suited than landform tags where definition arises from the context and the boundaries are often blurry - in this case fell in a strict sense refers to the upper lying parts of a hill landscape near the tree line. Practical use of the tag is however much more vague and inconsistent.

natural=tundra has probably been set up to overcome this problem since it does not have the landform component but is purely ecologically defined. It is however also very broad and equally overlaps all of the above tags to some extent.

The most prominent use of natural=fell is probably for alpine tundra where coloring it like natural=grassland might seem appropriate. Due to the broad definition of natural=fell mapping however often is also extremely broad which makes it not so suited for rendering in grassland green like here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1354524
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/197815853
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27869519
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/61374902

These comply with the wiki definition of natural=fell (except the last maybe) but IMO are too diverse to be rendered in grassland color.

From the mapping side i think it would be a better approach to tag alpine vegetation above the treeline as natural=grassland/landuse=meadow/natural=heath with a supplementary tag (alpine=yes or similar)

@fkv1

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fkv1

fkv1 May 3, 2015

On 03.05.2015 15:13, imagico wrote:

The problem of natural=fell is that it is somewhat poorly defined in the
wiki and accordingly used for a wide variety of purposes.

It has been part of map features for ages, and I think that the definition
is quite clear. If you find it unclear, discuss it in the wiki or in the
tagging mailing list.

Areas tagged
natural=fell often consist at least in parts of the following:

  • natural=grassland
  • landuse=meadow, meadow=agricultural (i.e. pasture)
  • natural=heath

There may be some overlap with the above, but look, all of them are green.

  • natural=wetland + wetland=bog
  • natural=bare_rock
  • natural=scree

These differ from natural=fell by definition.

  • geological=moraine

This is independent from natural=fell, as a moraine may be covered by forest
or a meadow or whatever. And it seems that most geological=moraine were
created by an import. The tag was never proposed.

As @dieterdreist https://github.com/dieterdreist explained this is partly
due to the mixture of tags for landcovers and landforms we have in OSM.

natural=fell is basically a vegetation related tag. That's why it is in the
"vegetation related" section of the natural=* wiki page. That's how it is,
even though some people such as Dieterdreist don't like it.

There's no point in putting approved and widely used tags in question here.
natural=fell is used 9461 times, it is approved, and it has its wiki page,
thus it should be rendered. You may render it using a pattern of red hearts
and purple stars, although a light green or gray tone might be more intuitive.

The most prominent use of natural=fell is probably for alpine tundra where
coloring it like natural=grassland might seem appropriate. Due to the broad
definition of natural=fell mapping however often is also extremely broad
which makes it not so suited for rendering in grassland green like here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1354524
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/197815853
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27869519
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/61374902

These comply with the wiki definition of natural=fell (except the last
maybe) but IMO are too diverse to be rendered in grassland color.

Some detailed mapping (splitting the areas up in fell/bare_rock/etc.) is to
be done in these examples. So far nobody cared, because natural=fell is
"rendered" white, and white looks like rock and glacier.

I've seen lots of areas which should be natural=fell but are actually tagged
landuse=grass just to make them look green.

This is a chicken-egg problem. You will not get people to use the proper
tags as long as you don't render them properly.

fkv1 commented May 3, 2015

On 03.05.2015 15:13, imagico wrote:

The problem of natural=fell is that it is somewhat poorly defined in the
wiki and accordingly used for a wide variety of purposes.

It has been part of map features for ages, and I think that the definition
is quite clear. If you find it unclear, discuss it in the wiki or in the
tagging mailing list.

Areas tagged
natural=fell often consist at least in parts of the following:

  • natural=grassland
  • landuse=meadow, meadow=agricultural (i.e. pasture)
  • natural=heath

There may be some overlap with the above, but look, all of them are green.

  • natural=wetland + wetland=bog
  • natural=bare_rock
  • natural=scree

These differ from natural=fell by definition.

  • geological=moraine

This is independent from natural=fell, as a moraine may be covered by forest
or a meadow or whatever. And it seems that most geological=moraine were
created by an import. The tag was never proposed.

As @dieterdreist https://github.com/dieterdreist explained this is partly
due to the mixture of tags for landcovers and landforms we have in OSM.

natural=fell is basically a vegetation related tag. That's why it is in the
"vegetation related" section of the natural=* wiki page. That's how it is,
even though some people such as Dieterdreist don't like it.

There's no point in putting approved and widely used tags in question here.
natural=fell is used 9461 times, it is approved, and it has its wiki page,
thus it should be rendered. You may render it using a pattern of red hearts
and purple stars, although a light green or gray tone might be more intuitive.

The most prominent use of natural=fell is probably for alpine tundra where
coloring it like natural=grassland might seem appropriate. Due to the broad
definition of natural=fell mapping however often is also extremely broad
which makes it not so suited for rendering in grassland green like here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1354524
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/197815853
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27869519
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/61374902

These comply with the wiki definition of natural=fell (except the last
maybe) but IMO are too diverse to be rendered in grassland color.

Some detailed mapping (splitting the areas up in fell/bare_rock/etc.) is to
be done in these examples. So far nobody cared, because natural=fell is
"rendered" white, and white looks like rock and glacier.

I've seen lots of areas which should be natural=fell but are actually tagged
landuse=grass just to make them look green.

This is a chicken-egg problem. You will not get people to use the proper
tags as long as you don't render them properly.

@gravitystorm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gravitystorm

gravitystorm May 5, 2015

Owner

it is approved, and it has its wiki page, thus it should be rendered

This is absolutely not how we decide what things to render.

Owner

gravitystorm commented May 5, 2015

it is approved, and it has its wiki page, thus it should be rendered

This is absolutely not how we decide what things to render.

@wmyrda

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wmyrda

wmyrda Feb 8, 2017

IMHO resigning entirely from rendering accepted and widely used tag seems as bad idea which makes one ask why it was approved as the proper tag and added to list of tags that are in need of rendering in the first place if it is so bad?

I think more appropriate solution should be adding conditional rendering to the tag instead of resigning from using it. Just like here #2556 (comment) I prepared code based on the situation same may be done for natural=fell.

wmyrda commented Feb 8, 2017

IMHO resigning entirely from rendering accepted and widely used tag seems as bad idea which makes one ask why it was approved as the proper tag and added to list of tags that are in need of rendering in the first place if it is so bad?

I think more appropriate solution should be adding conditional rendering to the tag instead of resigning from using it. Just like here #2556 (comment) I prepared code based on the situation same may be done for natural=fell.

@turnsole80

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@turnsole80

turnsole80 Mar 6, 2017

As a mapper, I would like to see the fell and/or tundra rendered too.

turnsole80 commented Mar 6, 2017

As a mapper, I would like to see the fell and/or tundra rendered too.

@kocio-pl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kocio-pl

kocio-pl Sep 16, 2017

Collaborator

As a mapper, I would like to see the fell and/or tundra rendered too.

How should they be rendered then?

Collaborator

kocio-pl commented Sep 16, 2017

As a mapper, I would like to see the fell and/or tundra rendered too.

How should they be rendered then?

@pnorman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pnorman

pnorman Sep 16, 2017

Collaborator

@wmyrda said

IMHO resigning entirely from rendering accepted and widely used tag seems as bad idea which makes one ask why it was approved as the proper tag and added to list of tags that are in need of rendering in the first place if it is so bad?

Something being widely used, accepted, and having gone through the wiki process to display approved doesn't mean we want to render it. The tags listed in this issue were raised as issues with the old osm.xml styles in Trac and something we can consider rendering, not something we've decided to, or that we need to.

Collaborator

pnorman commented Sep 16, 2017

@wmyrda said

IMHO resigning entirely from rendering accepted and widely used tag seems as bad idea which makes one ask why it was approved as the proper tag and added to list of tags that are in need of rendering in the first place if it is so bad?

Something being widely used, accepted, and having gone through the wiki process to display approved doesn't mean we want to render it. The tags listed in this issue were raised as issues with the old osm.xml styles in Trac and something we can consider rendering, not something we've decided to, or that we need to.

@turnsole80

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@turnsole80

turnsole80 Sep 17, 2017

How should they be rendered then?

THAT is the £64,000 question, isn't it?

I've had some ideas about rendering natural=fell the same as natural=heath and then changing the latter to use a grass or scrub pattern. But i'm still a total noob on Docker, so it's taking me some time to get the hang of it :(

turnsole80 commented Sep 17, 2017

How should they be rendered then?

THAT is the £64,000 question, isn't it?

I've had some ideas about rendering natural=fell the same as natural=heath and then changing the latter to use a grass or scrub pattern. But i'm still a total noob on Docker, so it's taking me some time to get the hang of it :(

@kocio-pl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kocio-pl

kocio-pl Sep 17, 2017

Collaborator

THAT is the £64,000 question, isn't it?

I answer such questions here almost on a daily basis, so where can I get the cash? 😄

But seriously - do you need some help with Docker? Maybe this documentation would be more in depth than what we have in this repo

https://ircama.github.io/osm-carto-tutorials/

Collaborator

kocio-pl commented Sep 17, 2017

THAT is the £64,000 question, isn't it?

I answer such questions here almost on a daily basis, so where can I get the cash? 😄

But seriously - do you need some help with Docker? Maybe this documentation would be more in depth than what we have in this repo

https://ircama.github.io/osm-carto-tutorials/

@vyskocil

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vyskocil

vyskocil Sep 17, 2017

Something being widely used, accepted, and having gone through the wiki process to display approved doesn't mean we want to render it. The tags listed in this issue were raised as issues with the old osm.xml styles in Trac and something we can consider rendering, not something we've decided to, or that we need to.

This is kind of answer that lead people tagging for the rendering and not for what is on ground...

vyskocil commented Sep 17, 2017

Something being widely used, accepted, and having gone through the wiki process to display approved doesn't mean we want to render it. The tags listed in this issue were raised as issues with the old osm.xml styles in Trac and something we can consider rendering, not something we've decided to, or that we need to.

This is kind of answer that lead people tagging for the rendering and not for what is on ground...

@SomeoneElseOSM

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@SomeoneElseOSM

SomeoneElseOSM Oct 10, 2017

Contributor

To add to what @imagico said above, natural=fell does get used for all sorts of things. In the UK it's used for "generic upland landuse", and also (on nodes) instead of natural=peak, and also for paths (often indeterminate) up hills. I'm not defending any of that; just mentioning it since people are talking above about testing a rendering out (and talking about this issue elsewhere) and if they aren't careful what to exclude they might get some surprises!

Contributor

SomeoneElseOSM commented Oct 10, 2017

To add to what @imagico said above, natural=fell does get used for all sorts of things. In the UK it's used for "generic upland landuse", and also (on nodes) instead of natural=peak, and also for paths (often indeterminate) up hills. I'm not defending any of that; just mentioning it since people are talking above about testing a rendering out (and talking about this issue elsewhere) and if they aren't careful what to exclude they might get some surprises!

@kocio-pl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kocio-pl

kocio-pl Oct 10, 2017

Collaborator

On the other hand - that might be what would help to see the problem and fix it. You never know.

It's interesting for me to find a source of this problem. It's definitely not tagging for rendering. Maybe it's just lack of proper tagging and it should be created? Maybe it's a real world problem with deciding what it is, or maybe definition is too broad or not precise enough (like with landuse=farm)?

Collaborator

kocio-pl commented Oct 10, 2017

On the other hand - that might be what would help to see the problem and fix it. You never know.

It's interesting for me to find a source of this problem. It's definitely not tagging for rendering. Maybe it's just lack of proper tagging and it should be created? Maybe it's a real world problem with deciding what it is, or maybe definition is too broad or not precise enough (like with landuse=farm)?

@printmaps

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@printmaps

printmaps Nov 4, 2017

Possible rendering for natural=fell (vegetation/grass islands):

bildschirmfoto 2017-11-04 um 06 19 59

printmaps commented Nov 4, 2017

Possible rendering for natural=fell (vegetation/grass islands):

bildschirmfoto 2017-11-04 um 06 19 59

@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matkoniecz

matkoniecz Nov 4, 2017

Collaborator

Given very low usage of landuse=harbour (less than 1000 worldwide) I would be strongly against rendering it. This style should show clearly established tags, rather than promote new ones.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=harbour

Given that https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3612 proposed rendering 7 years ago and harbour is not unusual or niche feature I would not consider this tag as candidate for rendering.

Collaborator

matkoniecz commented Nov 4, 2017

Given very low usage of landuse=harbour (less than 1000 worldwide) I would be strongly against rendering it. This style should show clearly established tags, rather than promote new ones.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=harbour

Given that https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3612 proposed rendering 7 years ago and harbour is not unusual or niche feature I would not consider this tag as candidate for rendering.

@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matkoniecz

matkoniecz Nov 4, 2017

Collaborator

given problems described in #545 (comment) and documented on wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dfell

Actual use of the tag for areas as of October 2017 includes different kinds of treeless areas, in particular areas vegetated primarily by grasses (Poaceae) which are commonly tagged as natural=grassland or landuse=meadow, areas mostly vegetated by dwarf scrubs which are more commonly tagged natural=heath, rain fed peat producing wetlands for which the established tagging is natural=wetland + wetland=bog and areas with very little or no vegetation which in most cases qualify as natural=scree or natural=bare_rock. When mapping preferably choose the tag that best and most precisely describes the specific setting you are looking at. Data users should not expect a particular type of surface or vegetation for areas tagged natural=fell.

I share @imagico opinion and propose to not render natural=fell.

Iff there is something not covered natural=grassland, landuse=meadow, natural=heath, natural=wetland, natural=scree or natural=bare_rock then new specific and clear tag should be introduced rather than rendering poorly defined natural=fell.

Collaborator

matkoniecz commented Nov 4, 2017

given problems described in #545 (comment) and documented on wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dfell

Actual use of the tag for areas as of October 2017 includes different kinds of treeless areas, in particular areas vegetated primarily by grasses (Poaceae) which are commonly tagged as natural=grassland or landuse=meadow, areas mostly vegetated by dwarf scrubs which are more commonly tagged natural=heath, rain fed peat producing wetlands for which the established tagging is natural=wetland + wetland=bog and areas with very little or no vegetation which in most cases qualify as natural=scree or natural=bare_rock. When mapping preferably choose the tag that best and most precisely describes the specific setting you are looking at. Data users should not expect a particular type of surface or vegetation for areas tagged natural=fell.

I share @imagico opinion and propose to not render natural=fell.

Iff there is something not covered natural=grassland, landuse=meadow, natural=heath, natural=wetland, natural=scree or natural=bare_rock then new specific and clear tag should be introduced rather than rendering poorly defined natural=fell.

@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matkoniecz

matkoniecz Nov 4, 2017

Collaborator

I marked natural=fell and landuse=harbor as rejected in the #545 (comment)

Collaborator

matkoniecz commented Nov 4, 2017

I marked natural=fell and landuse=harbor as rejected in the #545 (comment)

@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matkoniecz

matkoniecz Nov 4, 2017

Collaborator

natural=dune, see also https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3815

Can somebody give an example of OSM element where rendering this object makes sense? Given that it may be sand or not, covered by vegetation or not rendering landcover makes no sense.

In addition usage ( https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=dune ) is really low.

The only part that makes sense for me is rendering name - but given low usage I would not do even that.

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/sLn - 148 natural=dune worldwide have name tag, most of names are rendered anyway thanks to other rendered tags.

Collaborator

matkoniecz commented Nov 4, 2017

natural=dune, see also https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3815

Can somebody give an example of OSM element where rendering this object makes sense? Given that it may be sand or not, covered by vegetation or not rendering landcover makes no sense.

In addition usage ( https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=dune ) is really low.

The only part that makes sense for me is rendering name - but given low usage I would not do even that.

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/sLn - 148 natural=dune worldwide have name tag, most of names are rendered anyway thanks to other rendered tags.

@abdeldjalil09

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@abdeldjalil09

abdeldjalil09 Nov 4, 2017

natural=fell rejected in #545 (comment)

I marked natural=fell and landuse=harbor as rejected in the #545 (comment)

why ???????
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=fell ---> 13 798 uses

abdeldjalil09 commented Nov 4, 2017

natural=fell rejected in #545 (comment)

I marked natural=fell and landuse=harbor as rejected in the #545 (comment)

why ???????
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=fell ---> 13 798 uses

@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matkoniecz

matkoniecz Nov 4, 2017

Collaborator

why ???????

see #545 (comment) #545 (comment) #545 (comment) and #545 (comment) linked from #545 (comment) (and text that you initially quoted)

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=fell ---> 13 798 uses

usage is required for rendering, but not sufficient. Just because something is widely used does not mean that it should or will be rendered.

Collaborator

matkoniecz commented Nov 4, 2017

why ???????

see #545 (comment) #545 (comment) #545 (comment) and #545 (comment) linked from #545 (comment) (and text that you initially quoted)

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=fell ---> 13 798 uses

usage is required for rendering, but not sufficient. Just because something is widely used does not mean that it should or will be rendered.

@imagico

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@imagico

imagico Nov 4, 2017

Collaborator

natural=dune, see also https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3815

Can somebody give an example of OSM element where rendering this object makes sense?

Rendering dunes is not uncommon in maps. Two examples:

https://geogreif.uni-greifswald.de/geogreif/geogreif-content/upload/alg200/NR105Ouargla1932.jpg
https://geogreif.uni-greifswald.de/geogreif/geogreif-content/upload/sahara/Hassi%20Bourarhet.jpg

If what is currently mapped as natural=dune is suitable for creating such a depiction is a completely different matter though. A few examples where this might be possible:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439124398
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403607112
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374415265

Collaborator

imagico commented Nov 4, 2017

natural=dune, see also https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3815

Can somebody give an example of OSM element where rendering this object makes sense?

Rendering dunes is not uncommon in maps. Two examples:

https://geogreif.uni-greifswald.de/geogreif/geogreif-content/upload/alg200/NR105Ouargla1932.jpg
https://geogreif.uni-greifswald.de/geogreif/geogreif-content/upload/sahara/Hassi%20Bourarhet.jpg

If what is currently mapped as natural=dune is suitable for creating such a depiction is a completely different matter though. A few examples where this might be possible:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439124398
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403607112
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374415265

@dieterdreist

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dieterdreist

dieterdreist Nov 4, 2017

dieterdreist commented Nov 4, 2017

@turnsole80

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@turnsole80

turnsole80 Nov 5, 2017

Just an idea with the natural=fell issue:

Could natural=heath by subdivided like wetlands to have different types of heath such as coastal, moorland, alpine, etc?

turnsole80 commented Nov 5, 2017

Just an idea with the natural=fell issue:

Could natural=heath by subdivided like wetlands to have different types of heath such as coastal, moorland, alpine, etc?

@matkoniecz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@matkoniecz

matkoniecz Nov 5, 2017

Collaborator

Could natural=heath by subdivided like wetlands to have different types of heath such as coastal, moorland, alpine, etc?

Is it an idea for a new tag? Then it should be discussed on tagging mailing list/OSM wiki, not here.

Collaborator

matkoniecz commented Nov 5, 2017

Could natural=heath by subdivided like wetlands to have different types of heath such as coastal, moorland, alpine, etc?

Is it an idea for a new tag? Then it should be discussed on tagging mailing list/OSM wiki, not here.

@turnsole80

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@turnsole80

turnsole80 Nov 6, 2017

Before I get there, i'd be interested to see if it is: a) technically feasible; and b) a desirable solution to the above issue

turnsole80 commented Nov 6, 2017

Before I get there, i'd be interested to see if it is: a) technically feasible; and b) a desirable solution to the above issue

@geozeisig

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@geozeisig

geozeisig Mar 18, 2018

Please rendernatural=dune in the same way as natural=beach is been rendering.

geozeisig commented Mar 18, 2018

Please rendernatural=dune in the same way as natural=beach is been rendering.

@Tomasz-W

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Tomasz-W

Tomasz-W Mar 18, 2018

@geozeisig I think natural=sand pattern would be more appropriate.

Tomasz-W commented Mar 18, 2018

@geozeisig I think natural=sand pattern would be more appropriate.

@jragusa

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jragusa

jragusa May 30, 2018

Contributor

Notice that dunes are frequently located next to a beach in Europe (e.g. Spain, France, Belgium, Netherland, Germany and UK)

See for example this overpass request

Contributor

jragusa commented May 30, 2018

Notice that dunes are frequently located next to a beach in Europe (e.g. Spain, France, Belgium, Netherland, Germany and UK)

See for example this overpass request

@wmyrda

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wmyrda

wmyrda May 31, 2018

@jragusa They may be located next to beach, but at least in Poland are protected and unlike on the beach you may not freely walk around it therefore differentiating them from beaches seems reasonable to me.

wmyrda commented May 31, 2018

@jragusa They may be located next to beach, but at least in Poland are protected and unlike on the beach you may not freely walk around it therefore differentiating them from beaches seems reasonable to me.

@Tomasz-W Tomasz-W referenced this issue Jul 15, 2018

Open

Good first issues (task list meta-ticket) #3298

19 of 39 tasks complete
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment