Water should be better recognizable - difference to forest color too low

[tob2]

I think the water should be more bluish - currently it is not that well visible. Compare Mapnik's rendering with the others at http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/#11/47.6345/9.5654&num=4&mt0=mapnik&mt1=google-map&mt2=bing-map&mt3=nokia-map

That's especially visible if the lake is embedded in a forest; the small lakes are easily visible in the Google map and hardly visible in Mapnik (I mean those lakes: http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/#14/47.6138/9.6337&num=4&mt0=mapnik&mt1=google-map&mt2=bing-map&mt3=nokia-map)

Even more prominent is http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/#9/47.6714/11.1721&num=4&mt0=mapnik&mt1=google-map&mt2=bing-map&mt3=nokia-map (for additional comparison, some other OSM variants: http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/#9/47.6529/11.0403&num=4&mt0=mapnik&mt1=public_transport&mt2=geofabrik-de&mt3=mapnik-humanitarian )

I think that's mostly visible for lower zoom levels (<~10), especially since zoom levels >=13 have a tree-symbol rendering.

Another item - besides the more bluish color, which makes the lakes more visible and nicer looking is Google's shading of the edge of the water: It is slightly darker, making it stand out more and also making it look more 3D-link. Close zoom-in example which makes the shade most visible: http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/#18/47.6429/9.5038&num=4&mt0=mapnik&mt1=google-map&mt2=bing-map&mt3=nokia-map - while the first link above shows how much nicer it looks. (Google adds this edge shading only for lakes which are larger than a certain pixel size; for low zoom, only big lakes have it, when zooming in also smaller lakes get it.)

[imagico]

Contrast between water and wood/forest is a valid concern. This has been discussed in #1242, it is no worse than it was for wood before but still it is unsatisfactory, especially for river lines (which are frequently less visible than streams since the latter have a bright casing).

Note comparisons to other map styles without a serious landcover depiction are of limited use here - in Google & co. general land coloring essentially only serves aesthetic purposes and is not meant to transport significant information. This style is different in that regard.

[matkoniecz]

Yes, lakes, canals and rivers may be well hidden. See for example http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/54.2137/21.7272

Note that there are also other blue features - transport-related labels/icons (like bus stops) and motorways (with #319 motorways on low zoom levels are very hard to notice and look like rivers that may be fixed by #1736 what would give more space for water colour changes).

see also http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/41.2700/-111.8000

see also http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=60.638889&mlon=28.565278&zoom=16#map=10/61.5799/28.2610

[Gazer75]

Maybe giving both lakes and riverbanks a white outline like streams? Doing it for river would not work to well as those can be inside the riverbanks and it would look weird.

@tob2 Even better example are these areas: http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/#11/70.0354/28.6550&num=4&mt0=mapnik&mt1=google-map&mt2=bing-map&mt3=nokia-map http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/#11/63.2033/9.9384&num=4&mt0=mapnik&mt1=google-map&mt2=bing-map&mt3=nokia-map

It's quite noticeable in areas where we have imported landcover data in Norway.

[kocio-pl]

I made some basic test with Here color (#99cdfe), because it's the most contrasting one I've found on other maps, so we know the limits of modification:

1) Blue line in the forest:

2) Lines and areas in the farmland:

3) Lines and areas in the grass and trees:

4) Warsaw (water areas and lines) z9 z10 z11 z12

What do you think about it?

[EDIT:] The oceans:

[kdudzik]

For me it's a clear improvement, I'm looking forward to it. Could you provide screenshots of wetlands, whole continents/islands or examples in the referenced tickets like #2098? Maybe the label color needs adjustment too.

[matthijsmelissen]

Looks great to me, much more pleasant.

Maybe we can move the color slightly more towards blue? I have the impression the contrast to the landuse is even too big now.

[matthijsmelissen]

Towards white, I meant.

[imagico]

Water color needs to look good in a lot of different scenarios and in a lot of different combinations. I did some tests some time ago and found that it probably looks best if you differentiate rivers/streams, lakes and ocean. This however would require reordering the water layers which in return depends on #1982.

[wmyrda]

I also vote for this change and adding contrast to the rivers. With current implementation it is hardly possible to see rivers. Example in the area http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/49.6382/22.5560 For those that wonder where it is hidden there it is http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/283049525

[kocio-pl]

I understand how much testing is needed, because water color is so essential to the map. I started with what I already have on my database and also because this is my hometown, so I can find some places more easily, but it's just a starting point. Please provide some interesting cases around the world to check - and also other shades of blue. I will test as much as possible so we could at least exclude some of them and continue with just a few candidates.

Labels and other water related features (like ferry lines) are the next big thing to test, but we should have some promising water colors first, so I think this is of lower priority for now.

@imagico That's great, could you share some details about what you have found? If reordering the water layers is not too hard, this would be very interesting approach to test. But if it is hard, I would try to improve what we have now with just one universal color, because even this would be a clear progress.

[imagico]

Changing the layer order is not hard but requires water polygons and has some further effects w.r.t. landcover rendering that would need to be considered. So the order in which things need to be changed is

1. water polygons
2. changing layer order
3. changing water color

[kocio-pl]

Sure, I meant the whole change - how close/far are we now with 1?

[matthijsmelissen]

I'm not sure if having different colors for rivers and sea would look good in coastal/delta areas. In fact, I highly doubt is.

[imagico]

Well, it depends on consistent mapping of course which is currently often not the case, Hen-and-egg problem.

To get an idea of the concept look at the swiss topographic maps:

https://map.geo.admin.ch/?lang=en&X=263820.00&Y=768660.00&zoom=7

[kocio-pl]

Light blue (#c6e3ff):

[EDIT:] Also Finland lakes+forest:

[matthijsmelissen]

Looks pretty as far as I'm concerned.

[rmikke]

@kocio-pl could you also show Finland with #99cdfe ?

[kocio-pl]

Sure:

[kocio-pl]

Light blue (#c6e3ff) - more interesting places with remarks, as the color seems to be worth investigating (it fits better our current palette than Here water-color):

1) Water under ground looks pretty good, it's also different than playgrounds when they're near each other, however we may try to tweak playground color to be a bit more green (less dominating, less similar to water-blue, more similar to other leisure-greens):

2) Perfect pastel combination with land color, sand and secondary roads, also no need to fine tune admin borders and ferry line:

3) In park the contrast is bit too low - water areas are OK (dark borders would help a lot), but lines are hard to spot (I have no idea what could be done here, but I guess park is pretty safe place and we don't need to make user more aware of it). I also see no big problem with transportation blue (parking) and water labels (however making them bit darker is possible):

4) In the farmland this color is just more acceptable than Here water-color (not that aggresive, yet visible):

5) On a scrub it works as good as with the forest (even the lines are perfectly visible):

6) Works nicely:

7) Water lines on residential grey have too low contrast, however after they get wider on higher zoom levels, the problem is slowly going away:

8) On a grass area water lines are just visible and I find it to be a border case - it is better than on residential and park area, but bit less than on farmland, and much less than on scrub and forest area.

Do you have any comments or rendering requests?

[mboeringa]

Do you have any comments or rendering requests?

Maybe you could make another example of a typical "Dutch" scene like this one?: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/52.2556/4.9789

[kocio-pl]

It looks more or less like a grass example to me - you can see there are some water lines, but you have to trace them, because the whole pattern is not clear:

One solution may be to make blue a bit darker, so it looks equally good on light (park, grass) and dark (forest, scrub) areas. Current color is so dark, that it doesn't work on dark areas, this one may be too light to be clear on light areas, so I guess there is a sane middle ground between them.

The other one would be to make some outline around (maybe dark, maybe white), but I don't know how to achieve it yet.

[mboeringa]

The other one would be to make some outline around (maybe dark, maybe white), but I don't know how to achieve it yet.

Is this just a false perceptual impression, or do the water features already have a light(er) coloured outline? If I look at especially the last example, I really get the feeling they do... Also when looking at this example posted by you, there must be an outline?? https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/5439713/17122231/fdaab984-52d9-11e6-8eba-a38d570ff1e8.png

This remark by @Gazer75 also suggests the current features already have one:

Maybe giving both lakes and riverbanks a white outline like streams?

Maybe it is actually better to remove this lighter outline for streams using the suggested lighter color? I don't think it works well here.

Anyway, as regards the "Dutch" example and in general. It is really had to get a single water colour that works on all backgrounds. The alternative is to give a more distinct saturated color to the linear representations, as some others already pointed out and visible in many topographic maps. The first suggested saturated color shown in this thread is close to what's needed.

[wmyrda]

Personally I like original proposition more than lighter #c6e3ff color /just my 2 cents/

[rmikke]

OK, so I prefer #99cdfe over #c6e3ff. It looks a bit worse in Finland an world examples, but it's still good, while #c6e3ff is barely visible on residential and looks dull on park and grass.

[Gazer75]

I like #99cdfe best, but fear it might make rivers and streams disappear in woodlands.

Try https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/63.5378/11.2581 with it and see.

[daganzdaanda]

do the water features already have a light(er) coloured outline?

Yep, see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/7b492e6eb5f3ec02fb2d2c22fdf69249e1943896/water.mss#L59

As you said, it could be worth a try to remove that and make the lines darker / more saturated instead. Would be interesting to see a water-line and a water-area interacting if that's changed.

[rmikke]

Why not have darker borders on higher zoom and darker everything on lower? I imagine it so that if water is wide enough to have borders, then you see darker borders and lighter interior, otherwise only borders.

[matthijsmelissen]

I think any of the proposed alternatives would be better than what we have now, so I'd be really happy to see a PR!

[kocio-pl]

PR is easy, but testing is crucial for such important feature, so I plan to spend some more time playing with colors before that.

[mboeringa]

PR is easy, but testing is crucial for such important feature, so I plan to spend some more time playing with colors before that.

I do think the outline should be part of that further testing, and tests whether removing it for line features is feasible (compared to keeping it):

Yep, see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/7b492e6eb5f3ec02fb2d2c22fdf69249e1943896/water.mss#L59

[kocio-pl]

I think Thunderforest water color (#addeff), used in a public transport layer and probably also in cycling layer, is a compromise I was looking for - still light, yet saturated enough. Let's review all the places from previous attempt for a start:

0) Finland forest and lakes works good:

1) Water under ground looks good and greenish playgrounds are substantially different now:

2) (Even more) perfect pastel combination with land color, sand and secondary roads, however river name label could be corrected:

3) In the park both water area and water lines are clear for me, labels are bit too pale:

4) In the farmland this color is very good, even better than light blue:

5) On a scrub it works less perfect than light blue (as expected), but is still good:

6) Works good (here you can see new allotments):

7) Water lines on residential grey are good (and better than light blue) even on z13:

8) On a grass area water lines are good too:

9) Dutch landscape is now clear enough (just like the grass):

10) World view - just to be more complete:

So basically it's a balance I wanted - grass and scrub water lines are equally visible and both are good enough.

[matthijsmelissen]

I think this one is too bright, and attracts too much attention to the water features. Of the examples so far, https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1781#issuecomment-235450267 looks the best to me.

[jojo4u]

I find the color too cartoonish as well. In the Finland, Dutch and World example it really draws too much attention.

[mboeringa]

I find the color too cartoonish as well. In the Finland, Dutch and World example it really draws too much attention.

In the specific Dutch example, the "cartoonish" appearance is also partly to blame on the still present lighter contour outline. I would still like to see some examples with the lighter outline dropped...

[kocio-pl]

I'm surprised with your reactions! For me dark blue draws much more attention (especially in world example) and works poorly with the forest, light blue works poorly with few important types of light areas, and mid blue does not have any of these problems (less intensive than dark blue, more readable than light blue). I also don't feel it's cartoonish - that would be rather dark blue, since it's so exaggerated (that's why I was testing it as an extreme). I'm still perfectly happy with mid blue and would go with it.

I can test now rendering without the outline, however I'd like to know which color to try?

What else should I test now? I want to avoid testing everything and at least start with promising choices, since I plan to do a lot of checking for such important feature anyway.

[matthijsmelissen]

@pnorman what do you think?

[kocio-pl]

BTW: What do you think about public transport and cycling styles, which use mid blue already? Do you consider them to be cartoonish too?

[matthijsmelissen]

Transport is nearly unusable in the Netherlands: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/52.1647/4.8853&layers=TN

Cyclemap is better, but the water color still doesn't match very nicely with the landuse colors to me: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.0554/4.2810&layers=CN

[mboeringa]

I'm surprised with your reactions!

I just referred to the cartoonish thing mentioned by others to emphasize there is still a minor issue with the combination of the color and outlines on waterways as lines. In general, I think the color works reasonable, although pretty saturated.

I can test now rendering without the outline, however I'd like to know which color to try?

Well, test with this one first without the outlines, than maybe one a little lighter and slightly less saturated.

BTW: What do you think about public transport and cycling styles, which use mid blue already? Do you consider them to be cartoonish too?

I think the color works perceptually better there since that style has virtually no other colors competing with it, except a few very light ones. The darker muted colors of e.g. the forests in Carto seem to emphasize the saturation.

[kocio-pl]

I wouldn't blame the color itself in Mijdrecht example, it has much more to do with fat water lines in transport layer and the lack of other land colors - cycling layer looks much better and a rendering the same place with osm-carto and the same color shows that water lines are on the edge of visibility (!):

What I like the most in the mid blue is good readability (very important) and pretty equal contrast with different area colors (nice side effect). I'm happy to try some other blues with such properties, but I lack skills for finding them, could you hint me some? It could be less saturated, but I believe lighter shade would have worse readability.

[wmyrda]

I find today's kocio proposal a huge improvement over present implementation. I doubt one could find anything better in the timely fashion therefore I would say it would be best just to implement it and afterwards perhaps look for the different color if you still find it necessary as IMHO it would take ages to find anything remotely good for all that kinds of scenarios.

[pnorman]

@pnorman what do you think?

I haven't really been following. I'm not happy with the current water colour but haven't tried out alternatives.

Like you, I find #c6e3ff nice. I favour it over #addeff. I find that one a bit bright, although it seems okay on the larger water areas.

---

A request for everyone: When stating you like a particular colour, specify the hex value. Otherwise it can get confusing very quickly with the number of colours we're trying.

[rmikke]

Well, #addeff seems to best so far and better then current color.

2016-08-18 22:19 GMT+02:00 wmyrda notifications@github.com:

I find today's kocio proposal a huge improvement over present implementation. I doubt one could find anything better in the timely fashion therefore I would say it would be best just to implement it and afterwards perhaps look for the different color if you still find it necessary as IMHO it would take ages to find anything remotely good for all that kinds of scenarios.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1781#issuecomment-240844011, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AESNhEA6jI8pQy4lnesWCf9JiSCsMGV0ks5qhL5mgaJpZM4FwiFg .

http://tnij.com/WyszukiwarkaRowerowa http://jolanta.korwin-mikke.pl/ R.Mikke@pl.vwfsag.de Ryszard.Mikke@gmail.com

دراجة أكبر

[jojo4u]

Try a darker outline, like the Swiss Topo Maps from imagico's comment

[EdHarvey]

I find #c6e3ff is too unsaturated. When displayed over grass or woodland, and surrounded with the outline, it loses even more apparent saturation and becomes difficult to visually trace and could even be confused with unclassified roads.

addeff would get my vote, but it's a bit strident.

May I suggest a middle-ground compromise? #baddff

[imagico]

As i have pointed out in #2270 i regard the approach currently taken here as fairly problematic and do not feel i can productively contribute in that discussion. But since a larger number of people are likely to be reading and participating in the discussion here now i find it important to point out alternative approaches to this. So here are my views on the subject.

• the water color is one of the most important aspects of the style covering over half of the map area. Since the standard map style is essentially the public face of OSM in many aspects choice of the water color is a defining element of the corporate design of OpenStreetMap and changing it has potentially a higher impact than the change in road colors which was probably the biggest change previously.
• in the discussion so far i have seen no clear goals being stated for a color change except for increasing contrast with wood color. Given the high impact of such a change this should in my opinion be given a bit more consideration - i.e. what the aims are of rendering waterbodies in the map and how these aims weight relative to each other. Looking at the considerations and research @matkoniecz did on the road color matter could serve as an example here.
• what has been shown so far in terms of suggestions to me boils down to more or less random picks of possible colors, mostly borrowing from other map styles (without any analysis if and why those colors work in those other styles) and collecting opinions on these based on a few select sample areas. Most of these suggestions clearly will not work without significant other changes to the style or without creating new issues at least as problematic as the similarity with wood color.
• since the water color interacts with nearly everything else in the style at some point you can be sure a radical change in color will lead to serious problems in some situations and will require secondary changes to address these. IMO discussing the merits of specific fundamentally different water colors is only of use if these requirements for other changes are pointed out and are considered in the discussion from the beginning.

But to not just talk about how things should be done but actually give an example - you can find a possible take to this issue along the lines of what i already suggested above at

https://github.com/imagico/openstreetmap-carto/tree/water-colors2

I do not regard this as ready but more a proof of concept - not only due to the required water polygons and layer reordering but also because despite being a relatively modest change overall this IMO requires other changes to work, in particular the stream rendering at z13/14, rivers rendering at z8/9 and also the glacier color probably. There is also likely some room for tuning the colors although options for that are limited - i already considered a significant number of constraints when selecting these.

This suggestion is not meant to preclude any bolder changes but you should not fool yourselves that such a change is as simple as changing a color. Just because something looks fresh and interesting in a few test renders it does not necessarily work for the huge number of users of this style all around the world.

[kocio-pl]

I realize how big and important task it is and I also think this is just a proof of concept, which requires a second look (thanks for doing it!). It was just interesting and easy for me to move this stalled issue forward. Consider a forest/water contrast problem to be just a trigger - some problems and goals are easier to see when you start messing around.

I'm happy that you've started a branch and plan to test it. I think you could file new, more general ticket regarding water color problems, because this one is just a narrow case.

[kocio-pl]

Rough testing of water-colors2 (with just dark and light extremes) shows that current proposition is too dark for me: Dutch landscape is great, but Finnish one has the same contrast as currently (still it looks more like a water, so it's better anyway):

With lightening 5% the contrast is good in both cases, so it makes sense to test it more:

[kocio-pl]

By the way - here is the example of the river/sea junction (with all water types 5% lighter), you can also see the lake:

[EDIT:] Oceans could have the same color as the river (still 5% lighter version):

[imagico]

I made some small tuning to the colors originally chosen in my suggestion - with the effect that the changed inland water color is now on the same brightness level as the old one and this way does not purely depend on proper color reproduction and perception to be distinguished from wood. Here the deltaE towards wood.

color	hex	deltaE to wood
current water	#b5d0d0	27.5
water-color	#aad3df	33.6
ocean-color	#b9d3dc	32.4
river-color	#97c9d8	35.2

I would strongly suggest not to assess colors from just a few examples, especially not streams at z13 (which as indicated would require changes for these colors to work well) and not in very poorly mapped areas (like most of Finland w.r.t. wood and water).

A reasonable demo area for low zoom inland water & wood testing would be here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=10/48.3567/-74.9968

although the complete lack of river mapping in that area also limits practical relevance. The reason why many of these areas are badly readable in the map is not only the choice of color but also because of poor mapping.