search

gravitystorm / openstreetmap-carto

A general-purpose OpenStreetMap mapnik style, in CartoCSS
Other
1.53k stars 821 forks source link

Consider rendering forest fill under any other landuse #4371

Closed matkoniecz closed 3 years ago

matkoniecz commented 3 years ago

There are forest symbols, designed for being visible over landuse=residential and other land use.

But in some cases also green fill is displayed on top of mapped landuse (when forest area is smaller than competing areas)

Expected behavior

Green forest fill is rendered below landuse=residential (and other) while symbols still are rendered above.

Actual behavior

Sometimes green fill obscures landues

Links and screenshots illustrating the problem

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/711432832#map=19/41.67983/-88.55266

landuse=residential being marked:

screen02 screen04

ZeLonewolf commented 3 years ago

It is common to have minor areas of wood/forest on top of landuse=residential areas. In those cases, I think the current behavior works well.

cliffordsnow commented 3 years ago

I like how the current rendering works. If nothing else, the basemap look nicer when we render wood/forest on top of landuse.

talllguy commented 3 years ago

Old but relevant issues about these overlaps #888 and #1136. The size of the area matters. I personally have mapped a lot of landuse=residential to the property/subdivision boundary based on the admin_level wiki. It is common to have tree areas inside these residential areas. I think the green trees should show on top of the grey residential fill in those cases.

matkoniecz commented 3 years ago

I like how the current rendering works. If nothing else, the basemap look nicer when we render wood/forest on top of landuse.

That is also potential solution, if that proposed change would be rejected I will be at least able to demonstrate that fix was considered and rejected as worse than problem once someone complains again :)

AKA everything is more complicate than expected

imagico commented 3 years ago

I would be against removing wood/forest from the size based drawing order of the landcover layer. As @talllguy said having smaller wood areas show up within a residential area is important for proper mapper feedback. Yes, we have the pattern overlay, but that would not really be a proper display of the wooded area in such a case - and confusing in comparison to other small grained landcover mapping within a residential area like grass/garden.

I think the sized based drawing order plus the separate pattern overlay is the best way to be explicit about overlaps in mapping in a generic and comprehensible form.

matkoniecz commented 3 years ago

heh, that was quick