Have more contrast between leisure=garden and internal items

[tjur0]

Expected behavior

All internal mapped concrete areas (grass, trees, water) are clearly defined within a functional area (leisure=garden)

Actual behavior

Currently when you have a garden that has been fully mapped with concrete items like grass, trees, flowers etc. The contrast between these items and the places that have not had any concrete items is very low. This results in poor distinction when paths start and stop and makes everything blur together.

My suggestion to solve this would be to experiment with similar rendering/colors to leisure=park.

Screenshots with links illustrating the problem

[tjur0]

This would be rendering leisure=garden as leisure=park: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.47009/6.18458

[imagico]

I don't think conflating leisure=park and leisure=garden is going to work - these two tags are rather distinctly used with relatively little semantic overlap in reality.

Independent of that you probably noticed that in your example the micro-mapped central area is almost identical in both versions you show. leisure=garden is here used as a residual tagging of the overall installation. For this use of course the use of the same base color as for the most common micro-mapping elements is non-ideal. But this use as a residual tagging is rather uncommon globally for leisure=garden. Most uses are more specifically for decoratively maintained areas containing a mixture of different plants and therefore do not qualify for any of the more specific tags physically characterizing the vegetation. It is in particular quite common that the decoratively maintained, non-walkable areas of a park are tagged with leisure=garden. In those cases your suggestion would lead to a substantial loss of differentiation.

But you are right on one point - the use of grass color as base color for several different landcover fills (leisure=garden, landuse=flowerbed) is non-ideal for providing precise geometry feedback. This is not an easy problem to solve though - we are simply limited in the number of green tones that can reliably be distinguished by map users so they can still positively and reliably identify what they see on the map.

[dch0ph]

Personally I prefer the initial (existing) version (which looks splendid!). The flower beds etc. are "ornaments" in a garden, so it both looks coherent and is semantically coherent to use a single shade.

The issue of paths being poorly distinguished reflects the weak (IMHO) styling of paths, especially the "unknown surface" style. There would be a bit more contrast if surface tags were added to the paths on paved surfaces. But this is a separate issue.