search

gravitystorm / openstreetmap-carto

A general-purpose OpenStreetMap mapnik style, in CartoCSS
Other
1.54k stars 823 forks source link

Hide elements of underground parkings #3506

Open Tomasz-W opened 5 years ago

Tomasz-W commented 5 years ago

Continuation of https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2904 discussion since https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2904#issuecomment-346001797.

Proposition is to render underground parkings (amenity=parking + parking=underground) only as icon of "P" with down arrow.

Test renderings provided by @kocio-pl :

Before:

After:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/235550028

Gist link: https://gist.github.com/Tomasz-W/b9655543be00a01d51c975b03009c654 -> v5

polarbearing commented 5 years ago

Yes it makes sense to have a separate icon. I am trying to understand how rendering the area was done in the 'before' situation. I see some white area changing to green between before/after, but that does not match the outline I see from the way link? pu

kocio-pl commented 5 years ago

Before parking color change this was a yellow all around - see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2904#issuecomment-346001797 - so now this is parking grey visible:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230629285#map=18/41.88262/-87.62070 screenshot-2017-11-21 openstreetmap linia millennium lakeside garage 230629285

jragusa commented 5 years ago

It would be better to even hide this icon for 2 reasons: 1/ it's more important for an underground parking to know where is the entrance (for both pedestrian and cars) than the "centered" location because access are more restricted than for the surface parking. 2/ we will have 2 different icons related to underground parking: this one and those for the entrance (#3505)

kocio-pl commented 5 years ago

I am also still not sure if we need underground parking icon at all.

By the way - there are more things that we probably should hide for underground parkings:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8452071#map=18/55.75128/37.62905

screenshot_2018-11-10 openstreetmap

kocio-pl commented 5 years ago

Also related to #552 - and I think we should hide underground buildings.

polarbearing commented 5 years ago

more things that we probably should hide for underground parkings

I hope you remember that I was against rendering parking_space in general ;-)

Before parking color change this was a yellow all around

OK but I still don't understand why the area south of the word "Jay Pritzker Pavillion" changes from grey to green in the before/after. Why wasn't it green before?

Tomasz-W commented 5 years ago

I'm wondering what was a source for this area, x-ray ortophoto map or something? ;)

polarbearing commented 5 years ago

There are some possibilities:

If no source was given, my guess is the third.

kocio-pl commented 5 years ago

I hope you remember that I was against rendering parking_space in general ;-)

Still guilty - you were not against rendering "P" letter and parking aisles... :smile:

OK but I still don't understand why the area south of the word "Jay Pritzker Pavillion" changes from grey to green in the before/after. Why wasn't it green before?

That's probably because somebody made a small "park" area (it might be a tagging mistake, since the park is probably much larger), which covers all bigger areas:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/470069404#map=18/41.88350/-87.62233

jeisenbe commented 5 years ago

I agree that underground parking should just have the entrance rendered.

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 8:02 AM kocio-pl notifications@github.com wrote:

I hope you remember that I was against rendering parking_space in general ;-)

Still guilty - you were not against rendering "P" letter and parking aisles... 😄

OK but I still don't understand why the area south of the word "Jay Pritzker Pavillion" changes from grey to green in the before/after. Why wasn't it green before?

That's probably because somebody made a small "park" area (it might be a tagging mistake, since the park is probably much larger), which covers all bigger areas:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/470069404#map=18/41.88350/-87.62233

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3506#issuecomment-437628594, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshGXcRiv0J7m4_I7PixZH3DCavl54ks5ut1sigaJpZM4YX5lf .

Tomasz-W commented 5 years ago

I propose to wait for https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3505 merge and then check if rendering just parking entrances would be enough.

kocio-pl commented 5 years ago

I have just merged #3505. I'm inclined toward removing underground parking rendering, including icon, area, roads and individual parking places.

Adamant36 commented 5 years ago

Underground roads might be important for places where its going through a tunnel to and from the parking. Outside of that though, I agree the other things could probably be removed.

kocio-pl commented 5 years ago

Tagging can be different, for example here is just highway=service, but probably it should be tagged as a parking aisle, and we could hide all the parking aisles with location=underground and tunnel=yes:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/340493731#map=19/50.05602/19.93262

screenshot_2018-11-13 openstreetmap

Adamant36 commented 5 years ago

That would work. People don't seem to like using the service road sub tags much because of how thin they render. So whatever we can do to encourage more correct tagging of them.

polarbearing commented 5 years ago

should be tagged as a parking aisle

No, the access to a parking area is not supposed to be tagged parking_aisle, though this is a common mistake.

A tunnel is by definition underground, and we cannot drop tunnel rendering.

Tomasz-W commented 5 years ago

The question is how much examples similar to https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3506#issuecomment-438216801 we have? If I would map this area, I would add only a ways ending on parking entrance/ exit with one amenity=parking_entrance node, because mapping whole way there is propably just a guesswork.

polarbearing commented 5 years ago

With the tendency to indoor mapping, this is probably on the increase.

Adamant36 commented 5 years ago

102,219 service roads are tagged with the tunnel tag. Of those, 52,833 are tagged as tunnel=building_passage. So, although the tunnel tag on service roads isn't that prevalent compared to how many there are overall, currently 22,726, 431, a good number number of them are tagged as going under a building. I guess to continue rendering them or not depends on if your going with how many service are mapped underground or how many are mapped mapped as a percentage of the total overall. Personally, I prefer @Tomasz-W's way of mapping them where they end at the building, but that doesn't seem to be how they are being mapped.

polarbearing commented 5 years ago

Here in Germany, service with tunnel=building_passage is often the driveway through an apartment building to reach the inner yard. Thus they are no specific underground service, and I see no reason to drop rendering them.

passing
kocio-pl commented 5 years ago

I'm not sure if I was clear - I meant dropping rendering only "parking aisles with location=underground and tunnel=yes" ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Dparking_aisle ), and not any road with location=underground and tunnel=yes.

Interesting combinations to consider:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/service=parking_aisle#combinations

If there are already any with location=underground, it's less than 1000 uses.

polarbearing commented 5 years ago

Then the main service way, which should be without 'aisle', would remain visible in those underground parkings, which might create confusion. I also doubt that tunnel=yes is correct tagging for underground parking; shouldn't there be a negative level number?

jragusa commented 5 years ago

@polarbearing yes, only location=underground and level=* should be tagged. tunnel=yes is useless here excepted for access way.

jragusa commented 5 years ago

parking_underground_after

Once merged, this modification will lead to salutary corrections of nodes erroneously tagged with amenity=parking + parking=underground to amenity=parking_entrance.

kocio-pl commented 5 years ago

Reopening, since there are still more underground parking objects to be hidden - see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3506#issuecomment-437602119 and https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3506#issuecomment-438216801 for example.

kocio-pl commented 5 years ago

Since underground parking signs and areas are hidden now, we can deal with the leftovers:

screenshot_2019-01-27 linia 340493731 openstreetmap

screenshot_2019-01-27 openstreetmap

jragusa commented 5 years ago

For the first location, I don't think we can do anything except removing the underground service highway in this case. Removing highway=service with layer=-1 would be cause some side effects elsewhere.

For the second location, we can restrict to amenity=parking_space AND (parking=surface OR parking=null). About highway=service, indoor=yes tag could help.

map-per commented 3 years ago

I would change the current rendering to display an icon for public underground parking sites again.

The problem with just displaying parking_entrance ist:

BertMule commented 8 months ago

Please hide the damn thing. Only the entrance is relevant, with a clear marking (and not hidden when private or anything https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/4890).

Currently this underground garage hides an entire park on top of it. Boundaries are questionable, but probably imported automatically. Sacharovplaats

It is also repeatedly disappointing that this issue from 2018 is still left unfinished.

pnorman commented 8 months ago

It is also repeatedly disappointing that this issue from 2018 is still left unfinished.

No one has proposed a pull request for it, so someone would need to decide that it is a priority for them and write a PR. I expect all maintainers view other issues as more important so it's unlikely to be one of us, but it doesn't need to be.

As a reminder, among the values of the Code of Conduct is friendly and welcoming.

imagico commented 8 months ago

Expressing a demanding attitude towards volunteer developers here is not appropriate.

Apart from that the comment is off-topic and factually incorrect. This issue is now (after #3600) about the idea to hide elements of underground parkings (like individually mapped parking spaces). I am editing the title to reflect that.