render more private POI icons lighter

[HolgerJeromin]

Parking has amenity-points.mss#L172

[access != ''][access != 'yes'] {
   marker-opacity: 0.33; 

This works, as the marker is in SVG format. I think this could be extended. It is better to change the icon SVG format, but even PNGs can have point-opacity:

• leisure_playground (opacity transparent symbol for private recycling and playgrounds #1191, SVG icon: move playground icon to SVG #1177 merged)
• amenity_recycling (opacity transparent symbol for private recycling and playgrounds #1191, SVG icon: move recycling icon to SVG #1175 merged)
• amenity_toilets (SVG icon: move toilets icon to SVG #1328 merged)
• natural_cave_entrance (for security reasons) (opacity render cave symbols less opaque when access is restricted #1262 btw the cave entrace icon is in another mss-file than its name) (rejected)

less important

• tourism_picnic_site
• leisure_picnic_table
• amenity_drinking_water

and perhaps:

• tourism_museum (SVG icon: move museum icon to SVG #1174 merged)
• historic_archaeological_site
• amenity_library (SVG icon: move library icon to SVG #1228 )

For parking the name has another text color (hard coded, and not defined btw) which has to be decided as well.

• A logic the other way round could be implemented for barrier nodes.

[matkoniecz]

related to #782 #683 #847

[HolgerJeromin]

To be in sync with #682 we should probably drop "permissive" here and in parking, too.
I think many permissive parkings at supermarkets should be customers.

[matkoniecz]

We should not encourage value public. It is an equivalent to yes, and it is used only due to bug in JOSM preset (see http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/10007).

[HolgerJeromin]

Sure. I did not checked it. Thanks for your input.

[matkoniecz]

@nebulon42 - can you consider making SVG icons for leisure=playground, amenity=recycling, amenity=toilets before other icons? marker-opacity available for SVG files would make it easy to implement this request.

amenity=toilets are special case, here access=public probably should also be considered as valid.

[matkoniecz]

@HolgerJeromin I am unsure about tourism=museum - SVG icon will be used in a near future, but I am unsure whatever handling private museums makes sense.

[HolgerJeromin]

Good point. I looked at all icons for this list.
We could check if there are private museums in osm and if they should be rendered.
Perhaps dropping them in this style is a better approach.

[dieterdreist]

Am 23.12.2014 um 14:30 schrieb Holger Jeromin [email protected]:

We could check if there are private museums in osm and if they should be rendered.

what is a "private Museum"? Is it about private collections visit able by appointment ? IMHO if the public is excluded it will hardly be a museum. The term "private museum" commonly refers to privately owned museums, which are still visitable typically...=

[nebulon42]

Here are my proposals for icons heavily inspired by Maki and Nori:
playground: https://github.com/nebulon42/osmic/blob/master/amenity/playground-16.svg
toilets: https://github.com/nebulon42/osmic/blob/master/amenity/toilets-16.svg

I will look into recycling, this is a more complex one.

[nebulon42]

recycling: https://github.com/nebulon42/osmic/blob/master/amenity/recycling-16.svg
This time I used the SJJB version, it was the best.

[matkoniecz]

@nebulon42 Can you make make pull requests? I think that it would be better to separately SVGify icons and implement different rendering for private access.

toilet icon - I think that it would be a good idea to add this vertical bar.

[matkoniecz]

So toilets and archaeological site are now waiting for SVG icons.

natural=cave_entrance is problematic, as it is not clear what access on it means. It may declare whatever cave entrance is accessible or is it about cave? How should one tag cave entrance that is reachable, but further travel is impossible (door, bars etc)?

Maybe definition is hidden somewhere on OSM wiki, but as it is not intuitive big part of tags would ignore it anyway.

[nebulon42]

IMO access on the cave entrance means the cave. Reachability has to be represented on ways towards the entrance. If there are none then everybody would have to judge for his/her own if it would be dangerous/impossible to reach the entrance.

[HolgerJeromin]

Most "private" museums i found requires pre-registration. IMO a very valid reason to render them with opacity.

[nebulon42]

There is now a icon proposal for library (see #1228).

[pnorman]

This works, as the marker is in SVG format. I think this could be extended to at least, but the icon has to be changed to SVG format:

There is no need to change the icons to SVG for opacity. See point-opacity.

SVG gains us two things over PNG

1. Improved print and high-DPI tile sharpness. The latter does not impact tile.openstreetmap.org
2. The ability to set the icon colour in the MSS.

[HolgerJeromin]

pnorman: thanks for your explanation. updated

[tilmanb]

I propose to use point-opacity and text-opacity with a value of 0.55 0.4 because that looks nice. Also, no new symbols are needed.

[dieterdreist]

2015-01-05 12:56 GMT+01:00 Holger Jeromin [email protected]:

Most "private" museums i found requires pre-registration. IMO a very valid
reason to render them with opacity.

I'd not render them at all on a general purpose map, assuming that
"private" is not about ownership but access. Ownership shouldn't matter,
there are lots of "private" museums that are in no respect different to
publicly owned museums from a visitor's point of view. Think of the vatican
museum (owned by the roman catholic church), the Guggenheim Museum, the
Mercedes Benz Museum, etc., all privately owned.

[Tomasz-W]

I checked few OSM Wiki pages with tags tables to make a complete list of lighter icon candidates. I also though about tags mentioned above:

• amenity=toilets -> I think toilets shouldn't be considered here, because they have restricted access by it's nature, so making difference basing on access=* tag could make mess in this situation
• leisure=picnic_table -> tagging whole tourism=picnic_site with access=* is much more popular

My candidates:

• amenity=bbq
• amenity=bicycle_parking
• amenity=bicycle_repair_station -> after Add rendering for amenity=bicycle_repair_station #3069
• amenity=drinking_water
• amenity=charging_station
• amenity=shelter
• tourism=picnic_site
• tourism=wilderness_hut
• leisure=fitness_station

[kocio-pl]

I think toilets shouldn't be considered here, because they have restricted access by it's nature

I don't think so, there are different toilets. Some are paid, some are free, some are closed, some are opened all the time (imagine for example toilets on the beach or mobile toilets).

[Tomasz-W]

Just for the record: there is a proposition to use lighter icons also for ruined historic buildings
#152 (comment)

[jragusa]

First tries:

amenity=bbq
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1062462954

amenity=bicycle_repair_station
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/266000780

amenity=drinking_water
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5275971271

[jragusa]

Example with a camp site:
amenity=shower, amenity=toilets and leisure=playground
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/343862313

amenity=charging_station
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5996039033

amenity=shelter
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/426143872

tourism=picnic_site
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/771443110 (forest background)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/392096251

tourism=wilderness_hut
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/137043135

leisure=fitness_station
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/601801826

[Adamant36]

I really like this idea. Is it the same lightness as private parking though? Comparing the test of wilderness hut to private parking, it seems a little lighter for some reason. Maybe its the tone of blue or something.

[jragusa]

leisure=picnic_table
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4456465161

[jragusa]

@Adamant36 yes it's the same parameter:marker-opacity: 0.33

Is there anything else to consider as private POI ?

[jragusa]

Few questions:

• @kocio-pl some text POI are scattered into amenity-points. Can I group them into a more uniform list ? for example shower, bbq and bicycle_repair_station are grouped together and drinking_water, picnic_table and picnic_site are in an other one.
• Is that ok if there is no label for amenity=toilets ?

[matkoniecz]

some text POI are scattered into amenity-points. Can I group them into a more uniform list

It should be OK to reoerder them if that makes code more logical, but it would be preferable to do it in a separate commit (in first commit reorder entries, in second add handling of access tag)

[kocio-pl]

Order of many items seems to be more or less random, so grouping is possible when they have something in common. Just remember to not group things too heavily, since it makes any future code changes much harder and error prone.

Is that ok if there is no label for amenity=toilets ?

What do you mean, not rendering them if the name is tagged? Why would you like to do that?

[jragusa]

@matkoniecz I will create a new branch to have a clear commit list for the PR
@kocio-pl I do not want to add label to amenity=toilets. I just noticed they do not have a label while amenity_shower does for example. If it's ok I will not change this.

If there any other POI to include into the list ?

[Tomasz-W]

• amenity=toilets
• tourism=picnic_site
• leisure=picnic_table
• amenity=drinking_water
• amenity=bicycle_parking
• amenity=bbq
• amenity=bicycle_repair_station
• amenity=charging_station
• amenity=shelter
• tourism=wilderness_hut
• leisure=fitness_station

@jragusa I would add these ones too:

• amenity=waste_basket
• amenity=waste_disposal
• leisure=firepit

and consider:

• amenity=bench -> I'm not sure about this one, but if we are going to include picnic tables, then benches propably should be included too (or we exclude both of them)

[Adamant36]

There's a lot of private benchs in courtyards, in front of apartment complexes, outside of motels etc. I would say its worth adding them. Same for picnic tables. I wonder bicycle repair stations though. I was under the impression that they are a publically usable utility. Plus, the tag doesnt come up in the combinations for access=private on TagInfo.

[jragusa]

@Tomasz-W amenity=bicycle_parking is already supported. I include amenity=waste_* and leisure=firepit
@Adamant36 amenity=bench added

I'm preparing the PR for this issue using a new branch to clean the commit list

[Adamant36]

@jragusa, thanks. Random question, how do you to reorganize things? Alphabetical? Some kind of category based groups?

[jragusa]

@Adamant36 it's not clear for now but I think by topic and then alphabetically

[HolgerJeromin]

amenity=bicycle_parking is already supported. I include amenity=waste_* and leisure=firepit

Perhaps private waste_baskets should (not get mapped and) not be rendered.

[kocio-pl]

No matter what will be rendered and how, I guess everything that is visible on the ground can be mapped.

[Adamant36]

I don't think just because something is private doesn't mean it shouldn't be mapped or rendered. There's plenty of none public places that have private, invite only, events where it would still be useful if someone attending a function there could look at the map to find out where a bathroom, wastebasket, or bench is located.

[matkoniecz]

Please, let's avoid discussing this topic here. It is vastly preferable to discuss it on talk/tagging (or look through archives, it was discussed at least once) and summarize it on OSM wiki (if it was not done already).

[HolgerJeromin]

What about restaurants/fast food?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4364724819
You can not eat there same as in a city centre

Same with a restaurant inside an industrial complex or university campus.