highway=secondary/tertiary/unclassified rendering

jaakkoh commented 11 years ago

Currently the colors/rendering of secondary and tertiary highways seem to me to be the wrong way around in terms of "significance", This image implies to me that the secondary road (old -- and actually still officially -- primary) road to Trou-du-Nord would be less significant than the tertiary roads to Caracol and south of TdN.

Now, I haven't yet fully figured out how the surface/smoothness(/practicability?) tags impact the rendering so I might be missing something (and this might be also a data issue). .. But it's clear that those roads don't currently render in a way that would reflect ground reality.

Ok. Looking a bit at the data it seems that the surface tag is taken in consideration and the default value is to show ways w/out surface tag as strong (same as paved).

The secondary/tertiary roads should still be flipped the other way around, imo.

FOR UNCLASSIFIED:

I'd very much like to see some level of emphasis for unclassified vs. residential as it is the lowest level of the interconnecting road network (in urban areas). Now I know of only HikeBikeMap.de that would show the difference between residential/unclassified. And that's a pity because it doesn't encourage to tag properly -- nor to even understand that there is difference.

Examples (compare rue des Pins = unclssified and clear through road vs. rue Bailly = residential non-through road):

and then ... hmm. . the HOT Style actually shows the difference between unclassified and residential...

... but only if they are both surface=paved...

See rue Marie Therese next to HCH hospital in the right corner of the area (http://umap.fluv.io/en/map/hdm-first-draft_728#17/18.52375/-72.27561). That is an unpaved heavily used for through traffic unclassified road. .. HMm. I\m concluding that when it's unclassified it should show always more prominently than residential. Thoughts?

jaakkoh commented 11 years ago

The second image also shows that the bypassroad that is technically unpaved (albeit with a light paving, .. that is by now in not so good condition -- but is still tagges as a secondary road and is a clear major bypass road for avoiding Okap) and is tagged unpaved is practially not highlighted at all. .. This doesn't seem right to me.

yohanboniface commented 11 years ago

agreed, I should invert tertiary/secondary colors (by the way, note that none of the colors are really definitive, they are first shot in the direction I would like to go, but I know I will take time to refine them; but it's really ok that you make me notive what's wrong already)
agreed, unclassified should always be distinct from residential; this was my initial intention, so I will have a look on it to see what I can do better when they are both unpaved and with bad surface

yohanboniface commented 11 years ago

The second image also shows that the bypassroad that is technically unpaved (albeit with a light paving, .. that is by now in not so good condition -- but is still tagges as a secondary road and is a clear major bypass road for avoiding Okap) and is tagged unpaved is practially not highlighted at all. .. This doesn't seem right to me.

@jaakkoh Not sure to get this point :s

jaakkoh commented 11 years ago

"Not sure to get this point :s"

The point: Secondary (and tertiary and unclassified) should be highlighted in a suitable manner also when they are unpaved. .. This case of the "Okap bypass road" (south of the airport) shows that if the road is tagged unpaved it will not be highligted. .. I think this is a style bug.

hotosm / HDM-CartoCSS

highway=secondary/tertiary/unclassified rendering #26