-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 819
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
[WIP] Borders rework #3666
[WIP] Borders rework #3666
Conversation
This is not a convincing idea in my opinion. The low admin level colors are not good to distinguish from various gray features, in particular railway lines. The high admin level colors obviously maintain all of the problems we currently have with the boundary color, in particular the disadvantageous color mixing on various backgrounds and the elephant in the room problem w.r.t. other color choices. Using several different colors for different types of boundaries would be highly confusing for map users because they cannot intuitively recognize different boundary types as the same class of feature and it blocks a huge area of real estate in color space. I will not block this change because of this but i want to make clear that this would not be destined to re-establish consensus on design questions here. |
Perhaps it would be better if all of the admin levels had the same color at
each zoom level, but the color could transition from gray at z1-z4 to the
current color at z10.
it blocks a huge area of real estate in color space.
This would be less of a problem if the color changes were limited to z5 to
z10, where we should be simplifying the number of colors used for
landcover, and fewer linear features are shown, and no icons.
But it would still interfere with changing the motorway color, I’m afraid.
…On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:48 PM Christoph Hormann ***@***.***> wrote:
This is not a convincing idea in my opinion.
The low admin level colors are not good to distinguish from various gray
features, in particular railway lines. The high admin level colors
obviously maintain all of the problems we currently have with the boundary
color, in particular the disadvantageous color mixing on various
backgrounds and the *elephant in the room* problem w.r.t. other color
choices.
Using several different colors for different types of boundaries would be
highly confusing for mappers because they cannot intuitively recognize
different boundary types as the same class of feature and it blocks a huge
area of real estate in color space.
I will not block this change because of this but i want to make clear that
this would not be destined to re-establish consensus on design questions
here.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3666 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshFufEd8hCKPUBcnBn6QH_B3bpTwgks5vJsyUgaJpZM4af9St>
.
|
That sounds sane for me. Could you prepare your independent proof of concept code for it? I would like to test it then.
👍 Yes, I also think the biggest problem is low zoom. On the high zoom the bright magenta labels are the only thing that really troubles me, but that could be easily fixed without touching anything else.
Could we just switch off color mixing for borders? I don''t see where it hurts on the map (1-3 examples please?), but if that could help without creating other problems, maybe it would be sufficient solution. If you have some other problems that should be solved immediately, please enlist them - with possible solutions, if possible.
I don't understand what do you mean here and the literal meaning makes little sense (it was not destined nor against many goals, also consensus was just persons agreeing with each other and the developers are now more diverse), but if this is not necessary here, I would be happy to discuss it in a separate ticket, please. |
Color mixing is the result of using transparency for borders. Some other map styles use opaque boundary line signatures but that is not necessarily easier to work with overall.
That the line simplification on boundary polygons does not work has already been mentioned back when @nebulon42 first tried this (#907). Apart from the color that is the most serious issue at the moment.
I meant you can consider this a non-review as per #2436 (comment) - meaning if other maintainers find this beneficial i will not object. But i don't see the vision behind this, i don't see a path design wise where to go from there so i think it does not really help regarding building consensus in terms of #2436 (comment). |
What solution would you suggest?
I don't agree that such general plan is needed or useful, but I guess vision belongs to #1975 anyway, even if you see it related to many individual issues. |
I think the plan was to change the border color, so that we could consider using a different hue for motorways and shift the other road colors one level lower, so that highway=tertiary would be yellow instead of white. The main problem would be with the admin level 2 and 4 borders, which might look similar to motorways if the motorway color was changed to purple. Also, some people dislike the appearance of violet borders at low zoom levels where there are few or no other linear features on the map. Changing to a weaker color would make the map more pleasant at z1 to z7. I had hoped that we could try the green border color from the German style and alt-colors style, but I think this was considered too similar to the protected_area boundary color. Perhaps if transparence were removed this could be reconsidered? |
Green is generally related to natural things, so I doubt that it fits the border rendering, it does not make sense for me as an idea, but the most important is to test different solutions to know for sure. |
I've created a new branch This adds the different color borders lines for z6-10, with the grayest colors for z5 and below, and full color at z11 and above. A few of the widths are also adjusted, since we are adding details for those zoom levels, as suggested in the alt-colors style. Rendering examples from Shikoku, Japan (sorry, mainly maritime borders): |
I understand that - but in my eyes changing selectively some boundaries in color to remove what seems to be the obstacle to make a specific road color change does not appear to be something that brings this style forwards. This is a tricky subject. I have made by choice in the ac-style based on my specific ideas and priorities (so i am not neutral in the discussion here) and based on a different cartographic context as well. It took a long time of contemplating and testing to come to this and i am still not really satisfied with it. I would love to see other ideas here - in particular also ones that go beyond just varying the color. |
Here are z5 to z8 in Shikoku, Japan with the earlier transition to violet borders (commit 98c4075): z5 Shikoku gray borders (same as earlier, z6 Shikoku less gray - Borders in |
Jakarta, Indonesia - comparing the current commit from |
@jeisenbe Your proposition seems interesting to me, so maybe you could open your own PR? |
@jeisenbe ping? |
#3716 took over. |
This is a technical replacement for #3553, it should also make easier to catch up with the current state of proposed changes and includes changes from #3652.
Fixes #3489.
Closes #3526.
Related to #621 and #3102.
Related to #3563
Changes proposed in this pull request:
#ac46ac
+75% of grey =#6b516b
) to the current#ac46ac
for levels 9+10 (using @vholten patches)#8c4c8c
)I believe this is minimal set of changes to make sense. Further ideas for border improvements dropped from this PR:
-...-...
), which in turn gives us possibility to use dots (maybe for example with some spacing, like:... ... ...
) to render admin levels 11 and 12Names rendering
Countries and states - basically the same as in previous PR
All labels on lines (z16+) - this shade of violet is less magenta, but still is recognizable and different from other violet and blue objects:
Before/After https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.32949/20.92530
Borders rendering
level 2, 4 and 6 - https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/54.3842/19.7208
level 8 and 9 - https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.63551/20.94475