Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, cycleway, path, track highway areas #4096

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Apr 15, 2020

Conversation

pnorman
Copy link
Collaborator

@pnorman pnorman commented Mar 29, 2020

Fixes #3995
Fixes #1967

Removes the rendering of highway=residential area=yes and highway=unclassified area=yes polygons. In #3995 these were established to commonly be a tagging mistake.

image

@pnorman pnorman requested a review from matkoniecz March 29, 2020 05:26
project.mml Outdated
('railway_' || (CASE WHEN (railway IN ('platform')
AND (tags->'location' NOT IN ('underground') OR (tags->'location') IS NULL)
AND (tunnel NOT IN ('yes', 'building_passage') OR tunnel IS NULL)
AND (covered NOT IN ('yes') OR covered IS NULL))
THEN railway END))
) AS feature
FROM planet_osm_polygon
WHERE highway IN ('residential', 'unclassified', 'pedestrian', 'service', 'footway', 'track', 'path', 'platform')
WHERE highway IN ('pedestrian', 'service', 'footway', 'cycleway', 'track', 'path', 'platform')
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see this adds back highway=cycleway, which is currently missing from this selection.

Do we actually want to render highway=cycleway areas?

Are there really areas where bicycles may travel freely in any direction?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I haven't given it much thought either way. The WHERE clauses were the only places missing cycleway, we were attempting to render it in the MSS and the COALESCE

@pnorman
Copy link
Collaborator Author

pnorman commented Mar 30, 2020

#1967 requests removing footway, cycleway, track, and path so I'm going to add those

These are also mainly inappropriately used where area:highway could
be used instead.
jeisenbe
jeisenbe previously approved these changes Mar 30, 2020
Copy link
Collaborator

@jeisenbe jeisenbe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you, this will remove several confusing renderings. Test images in Latvia show that most current examples of these features are mistakes, eg roundabouts or turning circles mapped as area=yes or highway=footway areas that should be mapped as highway=pedestrian areas instead, and the current rendering for highway=track and highway=residential/unclassified is confusing.

highway=track area+yes current
highway-track-area-before

track after
highway-track-area-after

highway=unclassified + area=yes before
highway-unclassified-before-2-after

unclassified after
highway-unclassified-area-2-after

  • A building is currently hidden by the rendering.

highway=footway + area=yes
highway-footway-area-before

footway area after
highway-footway-area-after

@polarbearing
Copy link
Contributor

What is wrong with area=yes on a footway (unless of course it is abused for the width of a linear feature)? It is very popular for minor areas of omnidirectional foot traffic, such as the round area in the middle of a park where all footways meet and you have some benches around. This is too insignificant for me to be a "highway=pedestrian". What is the logic to render area=yes on pedestrian but not on footway?

The example above with the hidden house is a tagging error, it should have been cut out as a MP.

Do we start dropping all rendering where a tagging mistake has been found?

@HolgerJeromin
Copy link
Contributor

What is wrong with area=yes on a footway (unless of course it is abused for the width of a linear feature)?

I added another example in:
#1967 (comment)

@jeisenbe
Copy link
Collaborator

What is wrong with area=yes on a footway (unless of course it is abused for the width of a linear feature)

While many examples are misused in such a way, it appears that majority of features with this tag are small pedestrian areas.

The problem with the current rendering is that it works well with highway=pedestrian, since the fill and casing colors are the same, but it doesn't look anything like footways or cycleways.

@polarbearing
Copy link
Contributor

polarbearing commented Mar 31, 2020

The problem with the current rendering is that it works well with highway=pedestrian, since the fill and casing colors are the same, but it doesn't look anything like footways

A solution would be to unify the appearance of linear highway=footway and =pedestrian, in the current pedestrian style (grey) just with different width (footway a bit narrower). That would also reduce the noise from the red footways.

IIRC there were attempt to do something like that here in the past, e.g. here:
1327#issuecomment-75430044

@polarbearing
Copy link
Contributor

As for highway=track areas, they are certainly rendered too prominently, a good approach would to adapt them more to the track appearance, e.g. making them darker and/or use some hatching or pattern.

@pnorman pnorman requested a review from imagico April 2, 2020 04:37
Copy link
Collaborator

@imagico imagico left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The following data on the different highway types - and highway=pedestrian for comparison:

type count area=yes + relations wiki documenting use on polygons
unclassified 13M 4166 + 197 no
residential 51M 20704 + 1305 no
track 18M 5612 + 277 no
path 8M 1950 + 265 no
footway 12M 53371 + 6979 yes
pedestrian 570k 160959 + 22536 yes

Based on that for unclassified, residential, track and path i'd say removing rendering due to a lack of broad use and acceptance by mappers is in order. For highway=footway i'd say more that this seems to be a synonym for highway=pedestrian when used on polygons - i can see no systematic difference between those in use or documentation - and as such it would be good to remove it - despite there being some use. But that is not a very strong opinion on my side - after all such use is nearly 1/3 of that of highway=pedestrian and you could argue that it is a well established synonym.

Have not tested the code but @jeisenbe seems to have done that.

@polarbearing
Copy link
Contributor

I disagree strongly.

First, this is yet another example of the current practice, that after discussing a certain change in rendering for one feature, another feature is included in this change on the last minute, without being sufficiently discussed.

In this case, the proposed change is not even present in the title of this PR, it is kind of a stealth removal.

Second, the PR now removes a feature used 55 k + 7k = 62k times, documented in the wiki and not declared as deprecated.

The removal will cause pointless mechanical changing such areas to highway=pedestrian, which they often aren't.

While @imagico sees them as synonyms, I see a difference. There are plenty other examples that are tagged differently but rendered identical. OSM is a database that is not just driving this style. It has other applications where this distinction is significant.

@imagico
Copy link
Collaborator

imagico commented Apr 2, 2020

Clearing up a few misconceptions:

  • reviews of this PR are based on all the proposed changes - both me and @jeisenbe specifically discussed the changes that were not originally included.
  • the main basis of rendering decisions here is actual use of tags as it can be observed in the database. Neither the wiki nor what individual mappers view different tags to mean or supposed to mean have a particular significance.
  • any analysis and demonstration that highway=footway is used on polygons systematically with a different meaning than highway=pedestrian would be most welcome.

@jeisenbe
Copy link
Collaborator

jeisenbe commented Apr 2, 2020

To clarify: I am happy with merging this PR as-is, because the highway=footway + area=yes features are usually small areas, they are not large pedestrian plazas or public squares which require a special rendering so that the center of a town or city will be represented properly.

However, if @pnorman decides to keep the current rendering of highway=footway + area=yes as identical to highway=pedestrian + area=yes, I would also support that. Either way is fine by me.

imagico
imagico previously requested changes Apr 3, 2020
Copy link
Collaborator

@imagico imagico left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just noticed that this will need to remove label drawing for these in roads-area-text-name as well - otherwise this is confusing.

@pnorman pnorman changed the title Remove rendering of residential & unclassified highway areas Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, and non-motorized highway areas Apr 5, 2020
This keeps the layer consistent with the changes to the fills.
@pnorman pnorman changed the title Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, and non-motorized highway areas Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, cycleway, footway, etc highway areas Apr 5, 2020
@pnorman
Copy link
Collaborator Author

pnorman commented Apr 5, 2020

First, this is yet another example of the current practice, that after discussing a certain change in rendering for one feature, another feature is included in this change on the last minute, without being sufficiently discussed.

Additional changes were added to the PR in response to comments from a review.

In this case, the proposed change is not even present in the title of this PR, it is kind of a stealth removal.

I've now edited the title to reflect the changes.

Second, the PR now removes a feature used 55 k + 7k = 62k times, documented in the wiki and not declared as deprecated.

I don't consider the wiki status as important as the actual usage numbers.


Based on that for unclassified, residential, track and path i'd say removing rendering due to a lack of broad use and acceptance by mappers is in order.

I'm not sure, based on the table I see use. Not as much as pedestrian, obviously, but more than the other roads in the table.

@jeisenbe jeisenbe dismissed their stale review April 5, 2020 05:06

New commits

@jeisenbe
Copy link
Collaborator

jeisenbe commented Apr 5, 2020

Based on that for unclassified, residential, track and path i'd say removing rendering due to a lack of broad use and acceptance by mappers is in order.

I'm not sure, based on the table I see use. Not as much as pedestrian, obviously, but more than the other roads in the table.

@pnorman - do you mean you are not sure about highway=footway areas? I

t's true that area tagging of those features is more common that the others on the list: about 1 out of 200 footway features are currently mapped as areas, while for the others on the list there are less than 1 per 1000.

Like I've said, I support removing the rendering of residential, unclassified, track and cycleway area renderings, but I can go either way about highway=footway - it's odd to render it the same as highway=pedestrian, but we could work on fixing that later, if necessary.

@jeisenbe
Copy link
Collaborator

jeisenbe commented Apr 5, 2020

I've checked the local data in Oregon, and I noticed that the great majority of highway=footway + area=yes closed ways also have a man_made=pier or public_transport=platform feature:

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Sob - 44 total features
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Soc - 39 with man_made=pier or public_transport=platform

Overall, a smaller percentage of highway=footway areas have this combination: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Sod - 3416 total. I believe the iD editor was adding these tags to piers and platforms automatically, so this mapping is probably not intentional.

In the case of platform, the correct tag is highway=platform for the bus platforms which were mapped in Oregon (or sometimes railway=platform in other contexts):

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/44.04760/-123.07723
highway-pedestrian-oregon-bus-platform-19:44 04760:-123 07723

For the piers, the tagging is not exactly wrong, but it's not commonly added by mappers who are not using iD:

Here are the other 5 features in the State:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/45.50853/-122.67222

  • Two adjacent square areas in a park:
    highway-pedestrian-oregon-18:44 56114:-123 27742

highway-pedestrian-oregon-19:45 50853:-122 67222

highway-pedestrian-oregon-18:44 76010:-124 06489

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/44.04177/-123.06829

  • Error: addition of highway=footway + area=yes to leisure=track
    highway-ped-leisure-track-oregon-17:44 04177:-123 06829

Rendering with this PR:
highway-ped-leisure-track-oregon-after

@jeisenbe jeisenbe dismissed imagico’s stale review April 5, 2020 07:26

Requested change in roads-area-text-name has been made

@jeisenbe
Copy link
Collaborator

jeisenbe commented Apr 5, 2020

Man made piers + highway=pedestrian:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/44.80906/-124.05909

Current
highway-ped-man_made-pier-before

After
highway-ped-man_made-pier-before-18:44 80906:-124 05909

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/44.98982/-123.99457
before
man-made-pier-highway-ped-before-19:44 98982:-123 99457

after
pier-highway-ped-after-2

@jeisenbe
Copy link
Collaborator

@pnorman - I'm waiting for you to merge this PR as-is or make changes if you want.

Do you plan to merge it soon, including removing the rendering of highway=footway areas, or change it to keep the rendering of highway=footway for now?

@pnorman
Copy link
Collaborator Author

pnorman commented Apr 10, 2020

Do you plan to merge it soon, including removing the rendering of highway=footway areas, or change it to keep the rendering of highway=footway for now?

I'll change it

@@ -1758,7 +1758,7 @@ Layer:
name
FROM planet_osm_polygon
WHERE way && !bbox!
AND (highway IN ('residential', 'unclassified', 'pedestrian', 'service', 'footway', 'cycleway', 'living_street', 'track', 'path', 'platform')
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

'footway' is missing here

@polarbearing
Copy link
Contributor

If I understand correctly, area/footway is being kept for now. Could this please been reflected in the title? It seems that the message to osm-talk still included the removal, probably by copy/pasting?

@jeisenbe
Copy link
Collaborator

Sorry, that should not have been in the list of changes for v5.1.0. I've updated the title of this PR.

@jeisenbe jeisenbe changed the title Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, cycleway, footway, etc highway areas Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, cycleway, footway, path highway areas Apr 10, 2020
@pnorman pnorman self-assigned this Apr 10, 2020
kocio-pl added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 11, 2020
Copy link
Collaborator

@jeisenbe jeisenbe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks, looks ready to merge

@pnorman pnorman merged commit bd22cf5 into gravitystorm:master Apr 15, 2020
@pnorman pnorman deleted the drop_minor_road_areas branch April 15, 2020 23:39
@polarbearing
Copy link
Contributor

footway still in the title?

@jeisenbe jeisenbe changed the title Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, cycleway, footway, path highway areas Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, cycleway, path, track highway areas Apr 25, 2020
@jeisenbe
Copy link
Collaborator

Title updated, thank you for catching that.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
6 participants