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

Rendering of different priorities #27

Closed
mfrieling opened this issue Feb 15, 2024 · 5 comments
Closed

Rendering of different priorities #27

mfrieling opened this issue Feb 15, 2024 · 5 comments

Comments

@mfrieling
Copy link
Contributor

The priority is defined as highest/medium/lowest (README file) or interregional/regional/local (script). But in the website legend they are only described as main routes and other routes, furthermore regional and local are rendered exactly the same (line width). Is there a reason for it distinguishing between regional and local in the data but not in the display? And if they should be distinguished, how to define which way is regional and which one local?

@mfrieling
Copy link
Contributor Author

To extend this question, should we (however) integrate official bicycle routes (or add them as additional layer extracted from OSM via Overpass query)?

@markusstraub
Copy link
Owner

The two lower priorities are mostly rendered the same, but the lowest one gets ultrathin / disappears before the medium one. So it definitely makes sense to use all three priorities while mapping (especially in areas where the network of recommended routes gets a little dense). Check out the network for Vienna to see it in action.

Regarding official bike routes: if they are useful they should be integrated into the recommended route network. It's the same as with infrastructure: we don't show all that's there but only what is useful to create a coherent network.

@mfrieling
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks. That makes sense that the lowest one (local) disappears before the medium one. But their line width is the same:

rkGlobal.lineWidthFactor = [1.4, 0.5, 0.5];

Maybe we could make it even a little bit thinner (or medium a little bit thicker if thinner would be too thin)?

@markusstraub
Copy link
Owner

I believe the situation is good as it is. It makes the map easier to read when the user only sees two priorities (i.e. two line widths) most of the time - and only when zooming out the the third category gets superthin / removed earlier.

See

rkGlobal.priorityFullVisibleFromZoom = [0, 14, 15];
rkGlobal.priorityReducedVisibilityFromZoom = [0, 12, 14];

But feel free to experiment with it using real-world data :) .. If you think you can improve readability I'm happy to see a pull request with the changes.

@markusstraub
Copy link
Owner

I recently changed the rendering so that all three priorities are clearly different in all zoom levels.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants