organicmaps/organicmaps-tmp

Archived

Fork 1

WIP: WIP Outdoors style #2804

Closed

pastk wants to merge 1 commit from pastk-styles-outdoors into master

pastk commented

2022-06-22 15:45:12 +00:00

Owner

A quick take on an outdoors style.

Bigger/thicker and/or visible at lower zoom levels features:

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.

Its possible to test it by building along with #2798, otherwise a map regeneration is needed to make all the changes take effect.

Needs more improvements and polishing.

Needed-for: #2356

A quick take on an outdoors style. Bigger/thicker and/or visible at lower zoom levels features: - 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. Its possible to test it by building along with #2798, otherwise a map regeneration is needed to make all the changes take effect. Needs more improvements and polishing. Needed-for: #2356

👍 2

vng (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2022-06-22 15:45:12 +00:00

pastk commented

2022-06-22 15:52:17 +00:00

Author

Owner

But looks terrible in cities:

![outdoors-1](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/18434508/175780405-144e1cec-5947-4994-b399-ade8cb43127d.png) ![outdoors-2](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/18434508/175780409-833c199d-1868-49ab-bb71-d050ff5617bd.png) But looks terrible in cities: ![outdoors-city](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/18434508/175780426-b4b3055a-f498-4596-b962-59ee1725e40b.png)

vng commented

2022-06-26 22:26:45 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Should we make completely different outdoor style instead of modify the current one?

👍 1

biodranik commented

2022-06-26 23:19:16 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Should we make completely different outdoor style instead of modify the current one?

Of course.

> Should we make completely different outdoor style instead of modify the current one? Of course.

👍 1

pastk commented

2022-06-27 10:32:32 +00:00

Author

Owner

Should we make completely different outdoor style instead of modify the current one?

Its just temporary to have an easy way to test it / use it and see the difference to the main style.

We also need to review the way style inheritance work to avoid having isolated copies of all styling rules for each style (as its going to be a maintenance issue).

> Should we make completely different outdoor style instead of modify the current one? Its just temporary to have an easy way to test it / use it and see the difference to the main style. We also need to review the way style inheritance work to avoid having isolated copies of all styling rules for each style (as its going to be a maintenance issue).

not-available-username commented

2022-07-01 11:56:04 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Currently trail_blaze is displayed as a generic i and is useless since it's impossible to know what kind of information it is. My personal opinion is that a trail blaze is useless when it's part of a path (you can use the path itself and your position to check if you are following the route), but I think that could be useful to render the trail blazes only when the key trail_visibility is bad or worse.

IMHO this could be applied also for the standard style.

I can create a smaller icon for trail_blaze, maybe a little rhombus.

Currently `trail_blaze` is displayed as a generic **_i_** and is useless since it's impossible to know what kind of information it is. My personal opinion is that a trail blaze is useless when it's part of a path (you can use the path itself and your position to check if you are following the route), but I think that could be useful to render the trail blazes only when the key `trail_visibility` is `bad` or worse. IMHO this could be applied also for the standard style. I can create a smaller icon for trail_blaze, maybe a little rhombus. ![File 01-07-22, 13 41 20](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/92886370/176888482-7e3d594a-7537-4dde-a528-9fe7bba5fdef.jpeg)

👍 1

pastk commented

2022-07-01 13:06:26 +00:00

Author

Owner

Currently trail_blaze is displayed as a generic i and is useless since it's impossible to know what kind of information it is. My personal opinion is that a trail blaze is useless when it's part of a path (you can use the path itself and your position to check if you are following the route), but I think that could be useful to render the trail blazes only when the key trail_visibility is bad or worse.

Thanks for spotting!
ATM OM differentiates only some values of information=*.
Namely, its office, map, board & guidepost.
All other values incl. trail_blaze, route_marker, terminal etc. just fall into a generic tourism-information OM type and are displayed by that i icon. Which is especially wrong in case of a route markers - as you noted.
So the fix will be to add a separate OM type for trail_blaze/route_marker and use a separate (small) icon for it.

> Currently `trail_blaze` is displayed as a generic **_i_** and is useless since it's impossible to know what kind of information it is. My personal opinion is that a trail blaze is useless when it's part of a path (you can use the path itself and your position to check if you are following the route), but I think that could be useful to render the trail blazes only when the key `trail_visibility` is `bad` or worse. Thanks for spotting! ATM OM differentiates only some values of [`information=*`](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:information). Namely, its `office`, `map`, `board` & `guidepost`. All other values incl. `trail_blaze`, `route_marker`, `terminal` etc. just fall into a generic `tourism-information` OM type and are displayed by that `i` icon. Which is especially wrong in case of a route markers - as you noted. So the fix will be to add a separate OM type for `trail_blaze`/`route_marker` and use a separate (small) icon for it.

👍 3