Add Outdoors/Hiking map style

alensiljak commented

2022-04-07 09:26:25 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

As suggested in the parent topic #1577, this is a request specific to Hiking view of the map.

👍 16 👀 1 ❤️ 2 🚀 1

alensiljak commented

2022-04-07 09:33:23 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I'll add that my only valuable experience so far was/is with OsmAnd. I'm quite satisfied with the features at the moment and would take them as a reference.

One of the most valuable ones being an estimate of time to reach the target in the planning process. There was a recent improvement in that regard and now the times are much more realistic. I used to lag the estimate by at least 1/3 of the time, never reaching the destination.

So, some of the important items:

shading (a way to see the steepness of a side of the mountain)
contour lines
a set of POIs related to hiking (customizable, though!) - water, huts, restaurants, shelters, gates, paths
coloured paths
path marks/signs (flags?) on the map
route's altitude profile, with ascent and descent values (in meters), for hike planning

I'll add that my only valuable experience so far was/is with OsmAnd. I'm quite satisfied with the features at the moment and would take them as a reference. One of the most valuable ones being an estimate of time to reach the target in the planning process. There was a recent improvement in that regard and now the times are much more realistic. I used to lag the estimate by at least 1/3 of the time, never reaching the destination. So, some of the important items: - shading (a way to see the steepness of a side of the mountain) - contour lines - a set of POIs related to hiking (customizable, though!) - water, huts, restaurants, shelters, gates, paths - coloured paths - path marks/signs (flags?) on the map - route's altitude profile, with ascent and descent values (in meters), for hike planning

👍 3

julianfairfax commented

2022-06-13 11:01:53 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I don't know if this is normal or not, but I entered a route and chose the walking option, only to have part of the route be a hiking trail. I was able to take the trail, but this might not always be the case depending on how equipped you are to go hiking vs to just go walking on a normal road. For this reason I believe hiking trails should only be part of routes made with the new hiking profile.

alensiljak commented

2022-06-13 11:06:24 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@julianfairfax, some of the paths I've walked through have been much much worse than the marked hiking trails. I don't think there's enough data on OSM to distinguish what exactly is meant by "walking on a normal road". You might as well choose the car navigation in such case.

julianfairfax commented

2022-06-13 11:12:07 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@julianfairfax, some of the paths I've walked through have been much much worse than the marked hiking trails. I don't think there's enough data on OSM to distinguish what exactly is meant by "walking on a normal road". You might as well choose the car navigation in such case.

Well in the app it shows as a brown dotted line meaning hiking trail. So they know it's a trail and not a road. The problem with car navigation is that it might take me on roads that don't have pavements made for walking, which is also dangerous. I don't know if "walkable" is a datapoint for OSM roads or not but I feel like it is cause they have a lot of data.

> @julianfairfax, some of the paths I've walked through have been much much worse than the marked hiking trails. I don't think there's enough data on OSM to distinguish what exactly is meant by "walking on a normal road". You might as well choose the car navigation in such case. Well in the app it shows as a brown dotted line meaning hiking trail. So they know it's a trail and not a road. The problem with car navigation is that it might take me on roads that don't have pavements made for walking, which is also dangerous. I don't know if "walkable" is a datapoint for OSM roads or not but I feel like it is cause they have a lot of data.

alensiljak commented

2022-06-13 11:27:23 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

The dashed or dotted line simply means a path, not necessarily a hiking one. OSM can't tell you whether you are equipped to walk on one or not. Even with the hiking trails there are so many variables and one can't know simply by looking at the map what equipment is necessary to go through it (ropes or other gear, what kind of shoes, etc.). When you add the weather, it becomes practically impossible.
What concrete suggestions do you have to achieve this?

The dashed or dotted line simply means a path, not necessarily a hiking one. OSM can't tell you whether you are equipped to walk on one or not. Even with the hiking trails there are so many variables and one can't know simply by looking at the map what equipment is necessary to go through it (ropes or other gear, what kind of shoes, etc.). When you add the weather, it becomes practically impossible. What concrete suggestions do you have to achieve this?

julianfairfax commented

2022-06-13 11:50:55 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

The dashed or dotted line simply means a path, not necessarily a hiking one. OSM can't tell you whether you are equipped to walk on one or not. Even with the hiking trails there are so many variables and one can't know simply by looking at the map what equipment is necessary to go through it (ropes or other gear, what kind of shoes, etc.). When you add the weather, it becomes practically impossible. What concrete suggestions do you have to achieve this?

Well in that case, those should only be included in the hiking profile, and roads, if there's a walkable flag then that's even better, should be included in the walking profile. But even if there isn't such a flag, the car and walking profile will still be different since motorways can be excluded very easily, and as such routes will be different. Better yet, the two fastest routes or more should be shown as options, and the user should be able to pick one or calculate the second one if they prefer that.

> The dashed or dotted line simply means a path, not necessarily a hiking one. OSM can't tell you whether you are equipped to walk on one or not. Even with the hiking trails there are so many variables and one can't know simply by looking at the map what equipment is necessary to go through it (ropes or other gear, what kind of shoes, etc.). When you add the weather, it becomes practically impossible. What concrete suggestions do you have to achieve this? Well in that case, those should only be included in the hiking profile, and roads, if there's a walkable flag then that's even better, should be included in the walking profile. But even if there isn't such a flag, the car and walking profile will still be different since motorways can be excluded very easily, and as such routes will be different. Better yet, the two fastest routes or more should be shown as options, and the user should be able to pick one or calculate the second one if they prefer that.

R1123345 commented

2022-06-20 10:44:53 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Mapy.cz has a feature where it shows hiking trails in coloured lines, corresponding to the signs on tthe road. As far as i know, this is already part of the osm data, not unique to mapy.cz. Is it possible to display these trails with a "hiking view" option in a similar fashion?

I don't think it is necessary to specify in the hiking view what kind of road it is, standard roads and paths are already distinguished in the underlying 'normal' map view.

Mapy.cz has a feature where it shows hiking trails in coloured lines, corresponding to the signs on tthe road. As far as i know, this is already part of the osm data, not unique to mapy.cz. Is it possible to display these trails with a "hiking view" option in a similar fashion? I don't think it is necessary to specify in the hiking view what kind of road it is, standard roads and paths are already distinguished in the underlying 'normal' map view.

👍 6

alensiljak commented

2022-06-20 10:53:30 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

In addition to the colors (which I'm not sure where the source is, as I see blue, green, yellow, and red paths but don't see the obvious tags in the hiking path feature), there is also the symbol tag - osmc:symbol. This usually represents the markings along the path.

In addition to the colors (which I'm not sure where the source is, as I see blue, green, yellow, and red paths but don't see the obvious tags in the hiking path feature), there is also the symbol tag - `osmc:symbol`. This usually represents the markings along the path.

julianfairfax commented

2022-06-20 11:01:04 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

OsmAnd has a "steepness" feature, which lets you choose whether you want normal roads that aren't too steep, completely flat routes, or completely steep routes. So looking at the elevation difference for the bigging on the end of a user's time on a certain road as a part of a route could be used to determine how steep that road is and choose to avoid it or not.

pastk commented

2022-06-21 20:50:05 +00:00

Member

Mapy.cz has a feature where it shows hiking trails in coloured lines, corresponding to the signs on tthe road. As far as i know, this is already part of the osm data, not unique to mapy.cz. Is it possible to display these trails with a "hiking view" option in a similar fashion?

Yeap, this info is usually embedded in a route=hiking relations. Usually only more prominent trails (e.g. of national/regional networks) are waymarked like that. It'll be good to support it in OM, I mentioned it in organicmaps/organicmaps#1577 (comment)

> Mapy.cz has a feature where it shows hiking trails in coloured lines, corresponding to the signs on tthe road. As far as i know, this is already part of the osm data, not unique to mapy.cz. Is it possible to display these trails with a "hiking view" option in a similar fashion? > Yeap, this info is usually embedded in a route=hiking relations. Usually only more prominent trails (e.g. of national/regional networks) are waymarked like that. It'll be good to support it in OM, I mentioned it in https://git.omaps.dev/organicmaps/organicmaps/issues/1577#issuecomment-980177481

pastk commented

2022-06-21 20:51:54 +00:00

Member

OsmAnd has a "steepness" feature, which lets you choose whether you want normal roads that aren't too steep, completely flat routes, or completely steep routes. So looking at the elevation difference for the bigging on the end of a user's time on a certain road as a part of a route could be used to determine how steep that road is and choose to avoid it or not.

OM shows an elevation profile when the route is being built so one can have an idea of trail steepness from there. This graph could use some improvement though.

> OsmAnd has a "steepness" feature, which lets you choose whether you want normal roads that aren't too steep, completely flat routes, or completely steep routes. So looking at the elevation difference for the bigging on the end of a user's time on a certain road as a part of a route could be used to determine how steep that road is and choose to avoid it or not. OM shows an elevation profile when the route is being built so one can have an idea of trail steepness from there. This graph could use some improvement though.

👍 1

pastk commented

2022-06-25 15:43:49 +00:00

Member

Here is an experimental OM build with an outdoors map style
(there is no UI yet to switch styles).

Download for Android (F-Droid flavor):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WoHHSsRTyuhBXyy5nmFGcYRVwVbuC3fp/view?usp=sharing

Its a quick take on an outdoors style, it needs much more work and polishing.

It features bigger/thicker and/or visible at lower zoom levels

paths/tracks, cliffs
contour lines
railways, powerlines and towers
water sources, peaks, saddles, passes
waterfalls, lighthouses, caves
campsites, huts, shelters, picnic sites
gates, stiles, fords
etc.

Sample screenshots are in organicmaps/organicmaps#2804
Patches and suggestions are welcome there too!

This build simplifies using/testing custom map styles by allowing to raise
features' visibility without regeneration of maps (up to 3 zoom levels change)
at the expense of somewhat worse performance (and, consequently, battery life) -
feedback is much appreciated, especially from users with low-end devices!
(the visibility override patch: organicmaps/organicmaps#2798)

To test your own custom map style please put a compiled style file
(e.g. drules_proto_clear.bin) next to map files, e.g. Android/data/app.organicmaps.debug/files/styles/
(in Android 11+ its inaccessible without root).
Custom styles instructions: https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/blob/master/docs/STYLES.md

Here is an experimental OM build with an outdoors map style (there is no UI yet to switch styles). Download for Android (F-Droid flavor): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WoHHSsRTyuhBXyy5nmFGcYRVwVbuC3fp/view?usp=sharing Its a quick take on an outdoors style, it needs much more work and polishing. It features bigger/thicker and/or visible at lower zoom levels - paths/tracks, cliffs - contour lines - railways, powerlines and towers - water sources, peaks, saddles, passes - waterfalls, lighthouses, caves - campsites, huts, shelters, picnic sites - gates, stiles, fords - etc. Sample screenshots are in https://git.omaps.dev/organicmaps/organicmaps/pulls/2804 Patches and suggestions are welcome there too! This build simplifies using/testing custom map styles by allowing to raise features' visibility without regeneration of maps (up to 3 zoom levels change) at the expense of somewhat worse performance (and, consequently, battery life) - feedback is much appreciated, especially from users with low-end devices! (the visibility override patch: https://git.omaps.dev/organicmaps/organicmaps/pulls/2798) To test your own custom map style please put a compiled style file (e.g. `drules_proto_clear.bin`) next to map files, e.g. `Android/data/app.organicmaps.debug/files/styles/` (in Android 11+ its inaccessible without root). Custom styles instructions: https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/blob/master/docs/STYLES.md

Misalf-git commented

2022-06-25 17:56:21 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

feedback is much appreciated, especially from users with low-end devices!

Samsung Galaxy S4
I didn't test any features this build provides as I don't have the resources to create map styles. FWIW, I just took a look at the map, especially the woods.
The rendering is really slow and the phone gets quite hot. ;)

> feedback is much appreciated, especially from users with low-end devices! **Samsung Galaxy S4** I didn't test any features this build provides as I don't have the resources to create map styles. FWIW, I just took a look at the map, especially the woods. The rendering is really slow and the phone gets quite hot. ;)

pastk commented

2022-06-25 18:56:31 +00:00

Member

feedback is much appreciated, especially from users with low-end devices!

Samsung Galaxy S4 I didn't test any features this build provides as I don't have the resources to create map styles. FWIW, I just took a look at the map, especially the woods. The rendering is really slow and the phone gets quite hot. ;)

Thanks for your feedback, it's valuable!

Does the "regular" release OM version work significantly faster in the same area?
Were your maps on SD card or in the internal storage?
(when comparing this build and a release OM version please make sure both have maps in the same storage so that the storage speed doesn't affect results).

> > feedback is much appreciated, especially from users with low-end devices! > > **Samsung Galaxy S4** I didn't test any features this build provides as I don't have the resources to create map styles. FWIW, I just took a look at the map, especially the woods. The rendering is really slow and the phone gets quite hot. ;) Thanks for your feedback, it's valuable! Does the "regular" release OM version work significantly faster in the same area? Were your maps on SD card or in the internal storage? (when comparing this build and a release OM version please make sure both have maps in the same storage so that the storage speed doesn't affect results).

Misalf-git commented

2022-06-25 19:57:02 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Does the "regular" release OM version work significantly faster in the same area?

Yes.

Were your maps on SD card or in the internal storage?

They were on SD card. I moved them to internal storage, like I have it for the release version, and checked again.
No noticible change.

> Does the "regular" release OM version work significantly faster in the same area? Yes. > Were your maps on SD card or in the internal storage? They were on SD card. I moved them to internal storage, like I have it for the release version, and checked again. No noticible change.

pastk commented

2022-06-27 13:03:06 +00:00

Member

Were your maps on SD card or in the internal storage?

They were on SD card. I moved them to internal storage, like I have it for the release version, and checked again. No noticible change.

Sorry, do you mean there is no noticeable change between SD/internal maps location or there is no uchange between the release and the "outdoors" version after moving the maps to internal?

I've tested the "outdoors" build on an Asus ZB501KL which has a ~20-30% slower spec (according to synthechic benchmarks) compared to the Galaxy S4.
The speed difference is apparent, especially in the cities, but far from the point when the app becomes a pain to use.

When the outdoor style is ready and is included into the OM release there will be no speed penalty, because the maps data will be pre-optimized for both regular and outdoor maps styles. The current "outdoors" build is for testing purposes and for enthusiasts wishing to explore custom map styles making.

> > Were your maps on SD card or in the internal storage? > > They were on SD card. I moved them to internal storage, like I have it for the release version, and checked again. No noticible change. Sorry, do you mean there is no noticeable change between SD/internal maps location or there is no uchange between the release and the "outdoors" version after moving the maps to internal? I've tested the "outdoors" build on an Asus ZB501KL which has a ~20-30% slower spec (according to synthechic benchmarks) compared to the Galaxy S4. The speed difference is apparent, especially in the cities, but far from the point when the app becomes a pain to use. When the outdoor style is ready and is included into the OM release there will be no speed penalty, because the maps data will be pre-optimized for both regular and outdoor maps styles. The current "outdoors" build is for testing purposes and for enthusiasts wishing to explore custom map styles making.

Misalf-git commented

2022-06-27 14:07:46 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Sorry, do you mean there is no noticeable change between SD/internal maps location or there is no uchange between the release and the "outdoors" version after moving the maps to internal?

I didn't notice any change in rendering speed after changing the maps location from SD card to internal storage.

> Sorry, do you mean there is no noticeable change between SD/internal maps location or there is no uchange between the release and the \"outdoors\" version after moving the maps to internal? I didn't notice any change in rendering speed after changing the maps location from SD card to internal storage.

Rows
Columns

Add Outdoors/Hiking map style #2356