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

Suggestion: add check boxes to select/unselect types of networks #201

Closed
gerdami opened this issue Sep 15, 2014 · 10 comments
Closed

Suggestion: add check boxes to select/unselect types of networks #201

gerdami opened this issue Sep 15, 2014 · 10 comments

Comments

@gerdami
Copy link

gerdami commented Sep 15, 2014

Could be in the Routes popup: 3 check boxes to select/unselect

  • national networks (network : nwn)
  • regional networks (network : rwn)
  • local networks (network : lwn)

in order to light crowded maps.

@lonvia
Copy link
Collaborator

lonvia commented Sep 15, 2014

That won't be possible unless the map switches to vector rendering/vector tiles.

@pelderson
Copy link

image
The problem is increasing...
Is a separate map for the walking node networks an option? Those are the main problem in Nederland, and you really don't need to see long hiking routes and node networks in one view.

@lonvia
Copy link
Collaborator

lonvia commented May 12, 2019

A new category for relations within node network sounds like a good idea. We'd have to tag them appropriately first. Either have a separate value for network or a new tag altogether. Would be go to discuss on a more global scale as node networks are increasingly popular, see also this talk (in German) during last FOSSGIS).

@Hufkratzer
Copy link

Hufkratzer commented May 12, 2019

Is a separate map for the walking node networks an option? Those are the main problem in Nederland, and you really don't need to see long hiking routes and node networks in one view.

I can't imagine what the improvement of having two separate maps would be. Is walking on a node network route much different than on a long distance hiking route? I doubt that and I think one map that contains all relevant information for one kind of activity is more convenient to use than several separate maps.

@lonvia
Copy link
Collaborator

lonvia commented May 12, 2019

Oh separate map? No. I was thinking of simply a different style and a different handling in the route list.

@pelderson
Copy link

Well, whatever the solution, just look at the picture to see the problem: you can't see the map because of the sheer number of routes. The main problem is that node networks are too prominent. And yes, for planning and using hiking routes, node networks are very different from long routes. I don't know any hikers who like to see node networks on the map (numbered nodes yes, route segments no) , and people who use node networks use special node network planners, not waymarked trails.

@pelderson
Copy link

Oh separate map? No. I was thinking of simply a different style and a different handling in the route list.

How would that help, how would it de-clog the hiking map?

@pelderson
Copy link

A new category for relations within node network sounds like a good idea. We'd have to tag them appropriately first. Either have a separate value for network or a new tag altogether. Would be go to discuss on a more global scale as node networks are increasingly popular, see also this talk (in German) during last FOSSGIS).

I started a topic in the NL OSM forum about the idea, to explore the idea of a new network value for node networks. I suggested wnn for walking node network. network=cnn for cycling node network would be logical.

@pelderson
Copy link

While this idea of a separate network-tag for node networks simmers, could the node networks be rendered from a higher zoomlevel for the Netherlands? Routes first visible at zoom 12 would make the map much better. Numbered nodes at zoom 13 like it is now, that's fine.

@lonvia
Copy link
Collaborator

lonvia commented Aug 26, 2020

Closing this. "Uncrowding the map" needs a more generic solution that does not require user interaction.

@lonvia lonvia closed this as completed Aug 26, 2020
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

4 participants