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

Change and unify colors for stadium/track/pitch to be less dominating #2071

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 6, 2016

Conversation

imagico
Copy link
Collaborator

@imagico imagico commented Mar 5, 2016

This change replaces the very strong and dark color for stadium/sports_centre with the bright education/hospital color and unifies track/pitch into an intermediate green tone.

beforeafter

This is based on the following considerations:

  • the dark and strong color of stadium/sports_centre was a major problem since it stands out very strongly putting a lot of emphasis on these features and it does not comply with the general concept of using brighter and more muted colors for large features and stronger colors for small features. Using the education color seems fitting since there are a lot of similarities.
  • having a bright, neutral base color for stadium also encourages micromapping of features within - which currently often look ugly against the strong dark green.
  • having different colors for track and pitch makes the map less readable and it is a quite special and culturally specific distinction anyway.
  • removing two distinct colors from the style helps map clarity in general.

The line color for track/pitch was also brightened a bit because contrast to stadium is already strong with the new colors and this way mapped barriers can be better distinguished from plain edges.

@kocio-pl
Copy link
Collaborator

kocio-pl commented Mar 5, 2016

Mostly +1.

The only problem I see is education/hospital color - but since hospital has its own icon and school/university might have it too (drafts are ready, but PRs and debates are still ahead), maybe we could start treating this color more generally as "big amenity" probably (or just let it be used for more objects).

See also #1450 (comment) and #1624.

@polarbearing
Copy link
Contributor

When track and pitch have the same colour you cannot distinguish them when mapped over each other. Your example shows a modern mapping of a multipolygon for the athletics track, leaving room for the ball pitch. There are still plenty such places where the track is just a line (that renders as an area in carto).

Similar problem when sports_centre and stadium have the same expression, what when a stadium is built on the grounds of the sports centre?

I share @kocio-pl's consideration in not overloading the current education/hospital colour with unrelated features.

I agree that sports need some treatment, and I repeat what I said about golf in #2069, that moving towards outline rendering for all sorts of campuses might bring progress.

@imagico
Copy link
Collaborator Author

imagico commented Mar 6, 2016

When track and pitch have the same colour you cannot distinguish them when mapped over each other.

Since these are drawn with an outline you can always distinguish them - you just cannot identify them by color - which IMO is fine for a general purpose map style.

Your example shows a modern mapping of a multipolygon for the athletics track, leaving room for the ball pitch. There are still plenty such places where the track is just a line (that renders as an area in carto).

Similar problem when sports_centre and stadium have the same expression, what when a stadium is built on the grounds of the sports centre?

Could you point to examples please?

I share @kocio-pl's consideration in not overloading the current education/hospital colour with unrelated features.

They are not unrelated - a lot of sport centers are part of educational or medical facilities, all of these are usually public or semi-public but do not primarily serve commercial purposes (so landuse=commercial does not fit).

I agree that sports need some treatment, and I repeat what I said about golf in #2069, that moving towards outline rendering for all sorts of campuses might bring progress.

I don't think so - current boundary rendering in this style is very bold, takes a lot of space and clutters the map and it only works at a very limited range of scales (with area sizes from a few ten to a few hundred pixels at normal rendering resolution) - at smaller sizes it is just noise and at larger sizes it is just confusing. I would strongly recommend not using this for typically non-boundary features.

@HolgerJeromin
Copy link
Contributor

Could you point to examples please?

A stadium inside a sport_centre

@matkoniecz
Copy link
Contributor

Given that this change would remove any chance of making light yellow mean anything specific - it would be a good idea to rename it from @educational_areas_and_hospital to something like @unspecific_big_amenity or something similar.

@imagico
Copy link
Collaborator Author

imagico commented Mar 7, 2016

stadium and sport_centre overlapping does not seem to look any worse than before:

stadium and sport_centre

Regarding color name, yes, that would likey be a good idea - although i would probably name it @public_amenities.

I am not really partial towards this unification by the way but as everyone knows there is very little room to squeeze in more area colors. Looking at the urban context this essentially leaves two options for reducing complexity or adding new features:

  • making specific colors more generic by using them for multiple similar or related feature types. This is essentially what i did here. The bright yellow also invites this since the subtle tone indicates something fairly unspecific.
  • unifying the generic urban landuse colors (residential/retail/commercial/industrial) and using their room in color space for defining more colors for more specific areas. This could work nicely IMO but this would be a major change in paradigm in this style.

@polarbearing
Copy link
Contributor

There are a number of campuses that are currently not rendered at all (#1624), i.e. community_centre/social_facility/police, hostel/hotel/motel, museum, research_institute came up recently #2077, would those all be candidates for the same colour under the new name?

@kocio-pl
Copy link
Collaborator

kocio-pl commented Mar 7, 2016

@polarbearing I would opt for it, with reasoning exactly like in the @imagico post - road redesign showed us clearly that we're basically out of colors and amenity campuses are basically more like landuses - they deserve being shown, because it explains how the space is used.

One "campus" I still have no clear idea what to do is landuse=religious. Maybe some kind of grey would do?

@polarbearing
Copy link
Contributor

landuse=religious. Maybe some kind of grey would do?

Yes a slightly darker gray than residential would be good.

@matthijsmelissen
Copy link
Collaborator

I'm still in favour of rendering all campuses in yellow, independent of the type of campus.

@kocio-pl
Copy link
Collaborator

kocio-pl commented Mar 7, 2016

OK, yellow would be good for me too. And I would rather name it @amenity_area (or, less preferable, @amenity_campus/@campus), because it's more generic and we can't be sure if this campus is really public.

@imagico
Copy link
Collaborator Author

imagico commented Mar 7, 2016

It does not really matter how you label it. The important thing is not to use it arbitrarily as a catch-all for everything that does not fit into any other category. And things that have similarities to for example landuse=commercial or landuse=industrial should better be rendered in those colors.

@kocio-pl
Copy link
Collaborator

kocio-pl commented Mar 7, 2016

If they belong to mentioned landuses, they're already here and we have no problem with them. But what about this orphanage for example:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/304204007

It is in fact very similar to the schools below, yet if not the fence, its area shape would be unknown, no matter how big it is. And such campus can be quite big:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/123382251

@pnorman
Copy link
Collaborator

pnorman commented Mar 7, 2016

if not the fence, its area shape would be unknown, no matter how big it is.

I'm fine with that - we're not going to render all area features possible.

@kocio-pl
Copy link
Collaborator

kocio-pl commented Mar 7, 2016

Sure, but I'd like to see the structure of a given place and some of them are very common, like police/fire station or social/cultural/religious/sport amenities.

I don't advocate for amenity=* area (catch all), BTW.

@matthijsmelissen
Copy link
Collaborator

Sure, but I'd like to see the structure of a given place and some of them are very common, like police/fire station or social/cultural/religious/sport amenities.

+1

@polarbearing
Copy link
Contributor

I called them 'Societal amenities' in #1624, and would be happy to see their areas rendered, if not as boundaries then as campus-yellow.

We have icons on many of them meanwhile to distinguish them, we would need to push the school/univ/kids #120 eventually.

And as @kocio-pl's big campus shows, we might want them consistently with scaling labels.

@imagico
Copy link
Collaborator Author

imagico commented Mar 8, 2016

Changed the color name now as suggested by @polarbearing.

@dieterdreist
Copy link

sent from a phone

Am 07.03.2016 um 17:42 schrieb Christoph Hormann notifications@github.com:

It does not really matter how you label it. The important thing is not to use it arbitrarily as a catch-all for everything that does not fit into any other category. And things that have similarities to for example landuse=commercial or landuse=industrial should better be rendered in those colors.

I'm not in favor of using the same color for educational institutions like schools, universities and for hospitals, and now also for sports related features? Doesn't make more sense than leaving them white. Hospitals might often even be universities, but sporting facilities should be kept distinct, I'd rather prefer a lighter variant of the current "blueish-green" if the current tone is considered too heavy.

@imagico
Copy link
Collaborator Author

imagico commented Mar 8, 2016

I don't see room for bright green tones that would not be heavily confusing with various vegetation landcover colors.

@dieterdreist
Copy link

2016-03-08 20:25 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann notifications@github.com:

I don't see room for bright green tones that would not be heavily
confusing with various vegetation landcover colors.

aren't the latter all green yellowish, while sport is blueish?

@polarbearing
Copy link
Contributor

So one thing to decide is if we want to use the current edu/medical yellow for more societal amenities at all, the second question is if we do so, do we want to expand that to leisure/sports features. We might open a separate ticket for the first question. (done: #2087)

For the sports grounds, we also need to consider that mappers also use landuse=recreation_ground for larger sports complexes that have a stadium inside. See this example here where you have all, recreation_ground, sports_centre on a building, a stadium, plenty pitches and tracks, and some grass in between.

jahn-sport

@polarbearing
Copy link
Contributor

I wonder why pitches have an outline, while stadium and sports_centre don't?

@imagico
Copy link
Collaborator Author

imagico commented Mar 11, 2016

From what i saw there seems to be a lot of tagging for the renderer going on w.r.t. sports_centre where people don't use that tag to avoid the strong color. To me the above example quite clearly looks like it qualifies as sports_centre. I did not look into other tags that could be rendered in addition, there seems to be both landuse=recreation_ground and leisure=recreation_ground with widespread use and i don't know if either of them is used consistently.

It could be considered keeping the strong green for stadium only - however at the moment it seems stadium is often used as a simple wrapper for pitch/track combinations without substantial seating which does not really match the tag definition.

@polarbearing
Copy link
Contributor

stadium is often used as a simple wrapper for pitch/track combinations without substantial seating which does not really match the tag definition

yes this is a tagging error I fix when I find it

Thus we might lighten the sports_centre only, and leave the stadium stronger?

@matkoniecz
Copy link
Contributor

I admit that I really have no idea what to think about this change, so to date I left no comments about proposed change.

On one hand current sport areas rendering is poor and it is improved by this change. On the other hand I am not convinced by generic amenity, in fact I would prefer to drop rendering hospitals and universities as the same color.

In case of making a new map I would just do not render residential/retail/commercial landuses separately what would free some colors. It would be easily possible to color education areas and hospitals with separate colours and maybe still leave some colors to be used for cases like sport facilities.

But in this case it would be probably nearly impossible to stop rendering landuse, colour pool is limited.

So maybe yellow for generic amenity is not so bad? Or maybe abandon idea of rendering some amenities as areas?

@kocio-pl
Copy link
Collaborator

kocio-pl commented Jun 9, 2016

I still like using current school/hospital yellow for general "campus", because with such definition it become clear what those two have in common. I would not use it for general "amenity" currently, because I'm not sure if it would make sense for such a broad and not clearly defined type. However if we look closer and learn that "campus" is basically just any "amenity area", it would be a lot easier than making a list of campus types (like "sport campus" for stadium).

Dropping would make the map less clear IMO - I already don't like that the churchyards don't have a color, because they can take the same space as local school.

@imagico
Copy link
Collaborator Author

imagico commented Jun 9, 2016

Another possibility - if you look at the colors in #1991 (comment) garages and aerodrome could be unified into a general 'transportation' landuse or the aerodrome color could be re-purposed into a general public amenities color while keeping hospital/education as a distinct color.

Not sure if any of these options is better though.

@kocio-pl
Copy link
Collaborator

kocio-pl commented Jun 9, 2016

I have already proposed unification of "transportation area" for airports/heliports, ferry terminals and train stations - garages look to me more like resting area (depot) for some devices than real transportation, but I wouldn't mind to make them look just like residential areas and reuse this color somewhere else.

Sure, we could use this color for general amenities, but still my question remains - why hospital and school have the same color then, what do they have in common? If they are both special campuses, we should also reuse it for other special campuses, like police or religious and use garage color for any other amenity areas.

It could also work nicely with complex situation (as suggested here by @polarbearing) with recreation_ground (like general amenity area) and stadium/sports_centre (like special campus).

EDIT: garages color could stay like it is now if we start thinking that they are too general amenity-like area.

@dieterdreist
Copy link

sent from a phone

Il giorno 09 giu 2016, alle ore 23:08, Christoph Hormann notifications@github.com ha scritto:

Not sure if any of these options is better though.

IMHO we shouldn't assimilate garages (very common feature, not significant , IMHO more storage than transportation related) with airports (rarer, significant feature)

I also don't think that hospitals and universities have to get or keep a common color

@dieterdreist
Copy link

sent from a phone

Il giorno 09 giu 2016, alle ore 22:37, kocio-pl notifications@github.com ha scritto:

I still like using current school/hospital yellow for general "campus", because with such definition it become clear what those two have in common

what do they have in common?

  • I already don't like that the churchyards don't have a color, because they can take the same space as local school.

aren't churchyards rendered the same as christian cemeteries? Seems right to me

@kocio-pl
Copy link
Collaborator

what do they have in common?

They are campuses.

aren't churchyards rendered the same as christian cemeteries? Seems right to me

I guess not - both landuse=churchyard and (more general, for other religions) landuse=religious are currently not rendered in osm-carto at all.

@dieterdreist
Copy link

sent from a phone

Il giorno 13 giu 2016, alle ore 14:21, kocio-pl notifications@github.com ha scritto:

They are campuses.

for schools it is rather atypical to have a campus in my area (although they have dedicated grounds outside buildings), and also in case of a university or hospital not all associated open air areas are campuses. A campus is a specific type of spatial organization (park that connects several buildings of the same institution , typically a college or university in Northern America or something copying this concept, e.g. Apple campus in Cupertino).

I believe having an open air space that connects different buildings and is part of a common facility is no enough similarity to justify rendering it the same, you can find these criteria fulfilled in a lot of different settings, e.g. military, monastery, industrial, airports and whatever...

aren't churchyards rendered the same as christian cemeteries? Seems right to me

I guess not - both landuse=churchyard and (more general, for other religions) landuse=religious are currently not rendered in osm-carto at all.

the tag amenity=graveyard is rendered, that's a synonym I believe

"religious" is not a landuse in my view, but rather an attribute that can occur with any landuse, so I'm fine with ignoring this tag here

@kocio-pl
Copy link
Collaborator

I believe having an open air space that connects different buildings and is part of a common facility is no enough similarity to justify rendering it the same, you can find these criteria fulfilled in a lot of different settings, e.g. military, monastery, industrial, airports and whatever...

Sounds reasonable to me. What are your positive propositions/guidelines regarding school, hospital and other amenity areas then (if you have any)?

the tag amenity=graveyard is rendered, that's a synonym I believe
"religious" is not a landuse in my view, but rather an attribute that can occur with any landuse, so I'm fine with ignoring this tag here

See here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dchurchyard

@dieterdreist
Copy link

sent from a phone

Il giorno 13 giu 2016, alle ore 18:18, kocio-pl notifications@github.com ha scritto:

Sounds reasonable to me. What are your positive propositions/guidelines regarding school, hospital and other amenity areas then (if you have any)?

I agree we could somehow render the areas of certain features, but I would avoid the word campus, and I wouldn't put education and healthcare in the same group

the tag amenity=graveyard is rendered, that's a synonym I believe
"religious" is not a landuse in my view, but rather an attribute that can occur with any landuse, so I'm fine with ignoring this tag here

See here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dchurchyard

this should clearly be a proposal, it even has contradictions in its definition (the linked wp article says that these are mainly graveyards, while the wiki states that graveyards are excluded)

@polarbearing
Copy link
Contributor

amenity=graveyard is a long-standing tag for small cemeteries, in particular around places of worship.

landuse=churchyard, however, was the ducktagger's response to landuse=religious, limiting the tag to one particular religion.

landuse=religious was already proposed to be rendered in trac and again in #771, where it was rejected with only 1.6k uses, and for definition issues that have been fixed. It is growing in popularity, we have now over 7.3k, so that should be reconsidered (despite @dieterdreist not liking it ;-) )

@kocio-pl
Copy link
Collaborator

@polarbearing +1

@dieterdreist Anything more specific? If we reuse garages color, how would you assign those two colors for different amenity areas?

@matthijsmelissen
Copy link
Collaborator

To me this looks like an improvement. As no alternatives have been proposed, I'm going to accept this PR.

Of course, this is not a final choice, and other rendering suggestions are always welcome.

@matthijsmelissen matthijsmelissen merged commit f4e386a into gravitystorm:master Jul 6, 2016
@polarbearing
Copy link
Contributor

OK, could somebody please render my example from above?

Does this now open the door to render { community_centre/social_facility/police, hostel/hotel/motel, museum, research_institute } campus the same?

@kocio-pl
Copy link
Collaborator

kocio-pl commented Jul 7, 2016

The change does not look big here:
before (your picture)
before
after
v_8ykyg

@polarbearing
Copy link
Contributor

The F-L-J-Stadion remains recognisable since the whole campus is tagged as landuse=recreation_ground.

@dieterdreist
Copy link

sent from a phone

Il giorno 07 lug 2016, alle ore 02:01, kocio-pl notifications@github.com ha scritto:

The change does not look big here:

the bigger labels look much better, the color change doesn't look good IMHO, there's no logical connection between the stadium and a school or university

cheers,
Martin

@imagico
Copy link
Collaborator Author

imagico commented Jul 7, 2016

@math1985 - thanks for merging.

To help further discourse here an updated rendering of the current area color set:

carto area colors

@dieterdreist
Copy link

2016-07-07 11:41 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann notifications@github.com:

To help further discourse here an updated rendering of the current area
color set:

you're missing the amenity areas. E.g. hospitals, unis and schools, police.

@imagico
Copy link
Collaborator Author

imagico commented Jul 7, 2016

you're missing the amenity areas. E.g. hospitals, unis and schools, police.

That is 'societal amenities' now:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/landcover.mss#L49

@dieterdreist
Copy link

2016-07-07 14:26 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann notifications@github.com:

That is 'societal amenities' now:

thank you and sorry for overlooking this. Is there a definition what
belongs in there / what is the topic? What about libraries, museums,
prisons, social facilities, thermal baths, theatres, cinemas, conference
centres, marketplaces, fire fighters, beach resorts and racing circuits?

@polarbearing
Copy link
Contributor

The term societal amenities was coined in #1624, though sports facilities were not part of the original concept.

@Klumbumbus
Copy link

Could we have an outline for stadiums? They are now nearly invisible. See e.g.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.84206/12.94595
or
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.59777/12.71135

@HolgerJeromin
Copy link
Contributor

@Klumbumbus I added this request to my #2388

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants