Improve natural=heath color #780
Comments
|
We could probably have a whole discussion about blending many of the array of different green we have into just a few shades. Do we need to have different greens for everything? No doubt we will get a lot of grief from the community if we change anything. |
|
In the Netherlands, heath is always rendered purple on maps: Example. How do topographic maps in other countries render heath? |
* This resolves gravitystorm#773 * This resolves gravitystorm#780
Still curious about this. Is the purple=heath rendering a Netherlands-only thing? The old example is down, here is a new example. |
|
@math1985
heaths in Poland are quite rare, but I remember map or two marking them as purple, some used symbols (symbols were not really rereadable so this map would be a poor source of inspiration). In Poland typical heath looks like on this image: maybe it is also true in Netherlands and this is source of using purple colour for marking them? I thought about using natural=scrub symbol, with plant recoloured to purple. Unfortunately it is not true that typical heath will be associated with purple - see images on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath |
|
In principle there is of course more or less a continuum between a dense forest and a very sparse heath but in general a typical scrubland and a typical heathland are distinct enough to warrant different rendering. Abuse of the tags notwithstanding heathlands are distinct habitats characterized by distinct species of scrubs and only exit under certain conditions, they are not just relatively low growing variants of normal scrubland. Practically of course both natural=scrub and natural=heath are often abused to tag less dense parts of the higher growing vegetation, i.e. natural=scrub is frequently used for open woodlands with scattered but full grown trees and natural=heath is frequently used for grasslands with scattered larger scrubs. Both are wrong of course. Ideally there should be tags to document secondary vegetation layers in addition to the dominating type of cover so this could all be addressed properly. Just for understanding: natural heathlands are mostly limited to maritime and polar/mountain climates, in Europe they occur primarily near the Atlantic coast. Anthropogenic heaths OTOH also occur in central, eastern and especially southern Europe where human influence limits growth of larger trees and scrubs. In the eastern Mediterranean for example grazing has lead to sparse heathland being a widely dominating type of vegetation like here: It would be very wrong and misleading to equate that to the higher growing scrublands typical for the western Mediterranean like here: |
|
I opened #1733 intended to fix this problem. |
Is it also OK to consider heath as something between scrub and grassland? It may lead to something like
|
|
Differences are multi-dimensional here, there are at least:
Since grassland and scrub differ on multiple dimensions if you'd interpolate the color this creates confusion i think. And in terms of mapper feedback this kind of coloring also encourages abuse as i described (i.e. grassland with occasional scrubs/trees as heath). And there are only four base colors applying to natural vegetation anyway so this is not a real issue i think. You could think of creating a color line from hearth via scrub to wood and make grass a completely different tone but i don't think this is feasible considering the other constraints. So the current system placing scrub and heath on different sides of the line between grass and wood is not bad i think. |
|
Do we still want to change the way heath is shown? Violet is used for industrial and power-related areas, so I wouldn't like to use it, but original proposition was like this: Before |
|
FWIW I went for #E6E8C5 for this: |
|
AJT version: |
|
AJT color, Ireland - the biggest heath area I know. Z13 looks much better, with water and scrub colors being better visible (as always click to see full images) z10 z11 z12 z13 |
|
@kocio-pl Are you going to do a PR with it? Test renderings looks very good :) |
|
I don't plan to, I'm still looking for more coders. |
|
@kocio-pl If there is a final conclusion on what color to go with I can do a PR for it if you want. It would be nice to do something unrelated to icons for once. |
|
Great! It should be checked how would it look like in comparison with a new farmland color, otherwise AJT color was nice. |
|
Before and after with new farmland color and using AJT color. |
|
Thanks for testing, unfortunately they look like shades of the same color for me. |
|
Yep. I agree. You can barely see the farmland if its in heath. |
|
Tomasz Wójcik wrote:
I like an effect of pattern abov, ... , It's also a simplest way to make a
difference between lowest-level grass (no-pattern), higher heath/
grassland/ meadow (dashes pattern on different backgrounds) ...
While natural=grassland may grow high in areas of regular rainfall like
northern Europe, grasslands are very common in semiarid areas like the
western USA, Australia, northern Africa, Central Asia etc, and there the
grass is quite short. Most natural grasslands are gazed by wild (or
domestic) animals, eg Bison and Elk in the USA, which also keeps the grass
short for much of the year.
|
I don't agree with that. The olive color (#d1e0b4) doesn't look anything like woodland/forest. As far as changing grass/meadow. Grass is for managed grass, like lawns. Which is naturally a lot darker. So its fine the color it is. Meadow could be lightened closer to farmland though. As I've suggested more then once already. |
|
After some Photoshop tests, I like an idea of |
|
Remember that landuse=meadow is also approved to be used for pasture; in
fact there are many areas where most of the places tagged meadow are grazed
full-time as pasture.
Eg all of the areas tagged landuse=meadow in my hometown in Northern
California are pasture, most are irrigated in the summer, and grazed by
cattle or horses most of the year, so the grass is green and short.
…On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 6:15 PM Adamant36 ***@***.***> wrote:
Re: color of scrub. As I mentioned above, it starts looking similar to
woodland/forest, especially on z13 and lower, if the scrub color is too
dark.
I don't agree with that. The olive color (#d1e0b4) doesn't look anything
like woodland/forest. As far as changing grass/meadow. Grass is for managed
grass, like lawns. Which is naturally a lot darker. So its fine the color
it is. Meadow could be lightened closer to farmland though. As I've
suggested more then once already.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#780 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshKAhkrJ7iyLVPpv9-BPVJlOxoaE1ks5ux7yxgaJpZM4CRmJO>
.
|
Do you mean c8d7ab for scrub, like in the first few photos in this comment: #780 (comment) I think this color will work well for scrub, but I'll try some tests with intermittent streams on the appropriate thread. Let's try to get that settled first, unless we want to do grass/heath/scrub all in one PR. |
|
in the code it would just be @heath: #d1e0b4; Then @scrub: darken(@heath, 3%); The hex value doesn't really matter when its done that way. I think we can do scrub/heath in their own PR since they go together and then deal with grass separately on its own. Although, I think its fine with the current color (unless you mean grassland/meadows. Those could be changed, but it should still be in a different PR then scrub/heath). |
|
It’s better to have independent colors for separate features when possible,
especially since the patterns are png files and we have to generate it with
the right colors.
…On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 7:42 PM Adamant36 ***@***.***> wrote:
in the code it would just be @heath <https://github.com/heath>: #d1e0b4;
Then @scrub <https://github.com/scrub>: ***@***.***
<https://github.com/heath>, 3%);
The hex value doesn't really matter when its done that way.
I think we can do scrub/heath in their own PR since they go together and
then deal with grass separately on its own. Although, I think its fine with
the current color (unless you mean grassland/meadows. Those could be
changed, but it should still be in a different PR then scrub/heath).
|
|
Re: Patterns
The old OS maps included this legend. The resolution of this image is poor, but you can see "brushwood" (scrub) in the upper middle, and "Furze" in the lower middle for a rounder pattern. Furze is the same as gorse, or broom; a type of heath. Perhaps we can try a symbol for heath that is similar to one of these. Here are some examples of heath from outside of Europe: http://www.anbg.gov.au/photo/vegetation/heathlands.html Diagrams of Australian heath structure: Compare to Australian grasslands, the "Brunette Downs" from the Wikipedia Grasslands page: South African Heath: Alpine/Montane heath European examples for reference, from Wikipedia Heath page: Purple heather in Germany: |
|
(Deleted duplicate) |
|
@jeisenbe Can you make a test rendering of |
|
Re "Can you make a test rendering of #d1e0b4 with a vertical version of a pattern from #3143?" I believe d1e0b4 is too close to c8d7ab (it's only 3% lighter, and otherwise identical). Here is a comparison of Snowdonia National Park in Wales, from z10 to z16, with the new scrub color (#c8d7ab) as the only change, or with the new scrub color (#c8d7ab) and with #d1e0b4 for heath. I've also shown a third test with #d1e0b4 for scrub and #d9deb0 for heath. The color #d9deb0 has the same lightness and chroma as #d1e0b4, but is less green (hue is 113, instead of 122), so it looks more similar to the earlier test colors of heath, and not too similar to the new scrub color. It also looks less similar to grass, because grass is also more green (hue 128) z16 Scrub c8d7ab z16 Heath d1e0b4, scrub c8d7ab z16 Heath d9deb0, scrub c8d7ab z14 Scrub c8d7ab z14 Heath d1e0b4, scrub c8d7ab z14 Heath d9deb0, scrub c8d7ab z12 Scrub c8d7ab z12 Heath d1e0b4, scrub c8d7ab z12 Heath d9deb0, scrub c8d7ab z10 Scrub c8d7ab z10 Heath d1e0b4, scrub c8d7ab z10 Heath d9deb0, scrub c8d7ab |
|
There's an argument to be made that there should be a heath=* tag. It would like for different heath types and fix the natural=fell issue from previous requests. I have no idea how or where to propose this. Nor do I have the means at the moment to be honest, but please consider it as an option |
|
@chris, if a new tag is needed, please discuss this on the Tagging mailing
list or make a proposal page on the openstreetmap.org wiki.
…On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 1:06 PM Chris ***@***.***> wrote:
There's an argument to be made that there should be a heath=* tag. It
would like for different heath types and fix the natural=fell issue from
previous requests. I have no idea how or where to propose this. Nor do I
have the means at the moment to be honest, but please consider it as an
option
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#780 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshKAeUdG0kIg-wPK80iGvEeO4cJjdks5uyhdLgaJpZM4CRmJO>
.
|
|
Propably my last proposition, otherwise I'll end in mantal hospital ^^
|
|
#d0e3b6 for heath is too similar to grass (#cdebbo), as these tests show.
#d0e3b6 is Lch(88,24,125)
#cdebbo (grass) is Lch(90,32,128)
The lightness is only 2% different and hue is very close; the main
difference is chroma or saturation, but this doesn’t show up well on most
screens.
|
|
To blueish tinted/camo looking. We should just go with #d1e0b4 and scrub 3% darken it. Since both looked good and only Jeisenbe didnt want to go with it. Otherwise its never going to get changed. There's no such thing as perfect. |
|
What is your objection to using #d9deb0 for heath, as I’ve tested above?
…On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 7:32 PM Adamant36 ***@***.***> wrote:
To blueish tinted/camo looking. We should just go with #d1e0b4 and scrub
3% darken it. Since both looked good and only Jeisenbe didnt want to go
with it.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#780 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshJlDvAuG2R6PtsrZXBWiTdUevljbks5uynHDgaJpZM4CRmJO>
.
|
|
Whats your objection to using #d1e0b4 for heath as me and Tomasz-W said? Usually we go with a democratic system to decide things. It means you not get your way sometimes, but that's the trade off of doing things fairly and listening to other people. You should do a cut and paste side by side of both of them or like the square colored boxes thing. Its hard to compare them otherwise. |
|
Also, if we went with your color then it wouldnt be such a stright path to a scrub color that we know would work with streams would it? Or would we still with the heath darkened color? |
|
My objection to #d1e0b4 was stated in my previous comment: "d1e0b4 is too close to c8d7ab (it's only 3% lighter, and otherwise identical)." No other two landcover colors are this close. Even leisure, which somewhat overlaps with park, is 5% lighter than the park color, and @Tomasz-W previously said that he thinks this is too similar. As the test images above show (See #780 (comment)), Heath #d1e0b4 looks too similar to scrub #c8d7ab, especially it low zoom levels, eg z13, z12 and z10. z16 Heath d1e0b4, scrub c8d7ab - too similar, and heath is too green z12 Heath d1e0b4 z16 Heath d9deb0, scrub c8d7ab my new suggestion z12 Heath d9deb0 Another problem, which I forgot to mention, is that bog uses the heath color. Bogs are quite different from marshes; they are made from low-growing mosses which form peat, while marshes have grasses and similar plants. So they use the brownish heath color as a background to distinguish them from marshes, which have the green grass background color. If we make heath too green, it will not be easy to distinguish bogs from marshes. For both of these reasons, I believe it would be better to give heath a color with a hue more on the yellow side of green, for example #d9deb0 as I tested in the previous comment. BTW, @Adamant36, could you give me the link to the location you tested in previously in this comment: #780 (comment) |
|
Here's a better example of the problem with #d1e0b4. At z13 zoom level the landcover colors are the same as at higher zoom levels, but there are no patterns shown. Goodwick, Wales, z13 with heath d1e0b4: How about now? Heath #d9deb0 z14 to compare http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/52.0101/-4.9899 heath #d9deb0 Here is an area of bog (on the left side) near marshes (Right, upper and middle) Current heath rendering (with new scrub): Can you tell the marshes from the bog with #d1e0b4 for heath and bog? With #d9deb0 for bog and heath, it is easier to see the difference. I also see that with #d9deb0 for heath is easier to distinguish heath from grass. |
|
Re: "You should do a cut and paste side by side of both of them or like the square colored boxes thing" Here's the two colors, with grass on the left and the new scrub color on the right. d1e0b4 (middle) d9deb0 (middle) (The color picker is showing the Lch values, but I actually entered the hex codes directly) |
|
Hhmmm I guess that all makes sense. 3% isnt that much of difference and it probably should be more. The bog thing, I dont know. Is the colors of bogs and heath the same in real life? If not, maybe they should a seperate color. If we arent going with d1e0b4 for heath, is there a reason we couldnt use it for the scrub color as it was originally entended? I only said it would work for heath because of it having a second color that we could switch it out with. Now that we arent using it for heath though, id prefer it be the scrub color. It was the better of the two. Although its not that big of a deal, as both colors resolve the stream issue. Which is why we are here. I think.... What are you using to tweak with the colors? Is that an app or a website? I'll try and find the location from my example. I know it was in the New York area. I want say around Scranton. There isnt much heath tagging around there. So it should be easy enough to find in OverPass Turbo. I think its a good place because of the lake. Whatever new color for heath is picked it should be tested against a large body of water. Since theres a tendecy for colors to washout the blue for some reason. |
|
This is the link to the color gradient page. Use the dropdown menu to change "Colour selection mode" to "show all", and then you can enter hex values or RGB. |
|
I believe that this issue has been partially addressed by the changed scrub color. The old scrub color was a bluer shade of green, which contrasted particularly strongly with heath. @imagico used slightly different colors for vegetation areas on his branch, recently. I was considering making a PR, but the difference is slight, especially for grass (only 1% lighter) and scrub (a couple percent more chroma and a little shift in hue, on the alt-colors branch). Health is the only color that is significantly different on alt-colors; it was changed from
These changes would make the different types of vegetation slightly closer together in color, compared to the current colors; heath is shifted to be a little closer to scrub, which is more similar to forest/wood. But perhaps the reduced contrast is still enough? A number of renderings are shown on this page: |
|
Looks reasonable to me. I would just tune the wood color to be lighter or just a bit more yellow, because woods tend to make "heavy" areas on the map (large and dark at the same time). |
|
I have discussed forest color in #3513 (comment). |
The following issue has been moved over from trac:
Nyah. I think that current heath color is inharmonious. I propose to replace the color on #ddebbb (see the bottom picture).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: