paths and tracks renderings are indistinguishable

[a-pirard]

Initial text on old tracker ticket https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/5163:: The rendering of highway=path and highway=track is barely distinguishable. For example, many huge width highway=residential continue to an extra thin =track and then invisibly change to a =path. Just like on my National Geographic maps, I suppose that highway=track should be drawn with a distinguishable width something like half that of residential highways.

your reply: I don't think path and track are barely distinguishable.

my reply: Yes they are. Look at this part of the OSM map

and ask anyone, including yourself, which is the path and which is the track where vehicles can pass. In case of doubt, look at the key: Track Footway Just like any sensible rendering like the IGN map shown below, the key makes tracks very distinguishable from foot, and more important, although I still maintain that tracks should be wider on the OSM map, as in reality. But look carefully, the map does not correspond to the key at all !!! It even looks like the opposite: smaller red dashes south is the track and longer black north is the path !!! So that my request could also be stated "make the map like the key (and reality)" ;-)

This is @ http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/281165129#map=18/50.52934/5.81330&layers=D

Look at Le Stockis : residential -> track -> path transitions in the circles where they meet. The tracks go to a meadow and uphill through the forest. Compare with the following IGN map.

Isn't it obvious on this IGN map which are tracks and which are paths? Even without a key. The main hint of the importance of a way is its width, also dashes. The color means little obvious, but they're fine to follow similar roads when the beginning is grasped. And visibility when the roads are thin is best achieved with black on any background.

I made a bit of painting to simulate the difference:

Isn't that is a more pleasant map to look at and grasp? !!! And consequently much more pleasurable for the OSMers to map !!!

Please note that I don't claim I reached the optimal aesthetics: I just focused on visibility and differentiating what can be used by vehicle and which by foot(/bike) only. The paths also need some touch up for visibility.

[a-pirard]

I started a discussion of this here; https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-May/017628.html Unfortunately, I was hit by a 40 KiB message limit and hence small images. They were sort of cheating when saying that the lines on it are not very visible. So, I was happy to make and post larger images here. But oh my they reduced my images !!! Why the heck limit the text width to one half of the window when a basic principle of HTML is that it adapts to the window's width so that everyone can adjust it to his taste? That's no PDF, by Jove ;-)

[matthijsmelissen]

Any opinions?

[pnorman]

Any opinions?

We need to overhaul highway=path/footway/cycleway, probably after the track style changes get merged.

[daganzdaanda]

My opinion: I like the mock-up that @a-pirard did. The thicker line looks good there -- but I would need to see more examples of it in use.

[a-pirard]

Examples: whole teaser here: http://www.ngi.be/topomapviewer/public? And a source of inspiration maybe. No English sorry but there are a lot of pictures ;-) Tick: j'ai lu les conditions d'utilisation et je les accepte. before CONTINUEZ, you know upon what you agree.

[a-pirard]

I just read on Tagging@OSM that my mock-up looks like MapQuest (amazing) and Hike@bike. I swear I didn't copy from them! Humanitarian is exaggerating width.

[matthijsmelissen]

We need to overhaul highway=path/footway/cycleway, probably after the track style changes get merged.

@pnorman Did you have any particular ideas in mind?

[pnorman]

The length of the dash plus the spacing needs to be > the width of the line. Aside from that, not really.

[jojo4u]

The mock-up, Mapquest and Hikebikemap all make the track too prominent compared to highway=residential. I like the Opencyclemap layer.

[matthijsmelissen]

We need to overhaul highway=path/footway/cycleway, probably after the track style changes get merged.

Do you have any concrete suggestions, or at least could you indicate what the problems are that you identify?

[matkoniecz]

@a-pirard Heavily increasing strength of highway=track would make map worse.

Main problem is that highway=path missing from legend.

[a-pirard]

It's not a question of "how heavier" a track strength is but, as the title says, "distinguishable". A track must be distinguished from a path without closeup looking, and not only when it's next to it. The track must be understandably represented as larger, as vehicle vs foot. The legend must not be necessary to distinguish but to tell what the already distinguished elements mean. Other maps have been presented as doing that nicely and it doesn't matter if OSM is "a little less heavier" as long as the goal is fully met.

[matkoniecz]

I am not sure what is causing differences, but "track must be distinguished from a path without closeup looking" for me was always doable.

[kocio-pl]

They are somehat close, but I was also always able to tell which is which.

[nebulon42]

Sometimes this is tricky, I agree. Maybe having longer dashes on track while keeping everything else unchanged might help?

[a-pirard]

The confusion between tracks and paths is obvious from my pictures and I stopped mapping them because I disliked making fuzzy maps. Before filing this bug I asked several persons which is a track or a path and they couldn't tell. Everyone agrees, including the other maps and the persons who render OSM.org. You may well have no problem but is it a reason to fight against an obvious improvement for those ho have one, instead of being constructive and maybe say "my taste is like/a bit lighter/darker than this other map". It's like saying "you should stop improving cars because I don't have one".

[kocio-pl]

I think making track wider would do the trick, since almost all the roads are wide and footway/path are thin, and that reflects the common fact in reality (vehicles need more space than pedestrians) - that would be nice visual hint.

[vincentdephily]

+1 for making tracks wider, as they are always (?) wide enough for a tracktor, as opposed to paths.

In addition to this, it isn't rare for a highway=unclassified/residential to turn into a highway=track without any physical change, just because the rest of the road is only of use to farmers.