wind generators and military areas too dominant in low zoom

[hottrails]

Hello opentopos,

first let me congratulate to your project. It's the best osm style I have seen so far.

I just want to share my thoughts on two minor things:

1. wind generators show up already in zoom level 12, which is very early compared to most other symboles. Especially in areas where there are a lot of them I find that distracting (see area south of paderborn, for example).

I would expect it to be handled like communication towers, which are displayed from zoom level 13.

2. (smaller) military areas are shown beginning from zoom level 11 and are quite dominant (red & wide strokes). Maybe showing them only in higher zooms, choosing a less dominant style in level 11&12 or being even more selective on area size would be an improvement.

This screenshot gives examples:

Best regards, Thomas

[der-stefan]

Servus Thomas,

regarding your two issues:

• I think wind generators are just fine on zoom 12. They are very well visible landmarks and can be used for navigation. By the way: telecommunication towers (deutsch: Fernmeldetürme) are even rendered starting from zoom 11.
• Yeah, smaller military areas should be less dominant. I changed some values. Let's see, how the new rules work.

[hottrails]

Hi Stefan,

comparing wind generators to telecommunication towers because of their visibility is a good point. I also thought of that, but was confused as a 200m height communication-tower in the respective area didn't show up until zoom 13 (OSM)

I looked at other communcation towers I know and found one other very visible missing: Stimmstamm (OSM) and two other, which are obviously only relais stations of mobile communication near Seybothenreuth (OSM) in the city of Warstein (OSM)

It's quite obvious that the problem here is the data quality. The documentation is very clear that a huge tower for transmitting radio applications should be tagged man_made=communications_tower and tower:type=communication for smaller ones. The examples above mix that up.

To deal with that perhaps it would be an option to also include the height attribute, e.g. including also [tower:type=communication] if their height exceeds lets say 100 m?

Regards, Thomas

[der-stefan]

Good idea, Thomas! I wanted to implement it right away, but noticed that the column height is missing in our database. So with the next import we can activate it. (Hopefully I don't forget it then.)

[der-stefan]

I'm not sure why your towers don't show up now. I thought the issue was fixed.