render label for historic=city_gate

[dieterdreist]

City gates are mostly quite important features for orientation. Even if the citywalls or the city gate doesn't exist (or act as barriers) any more, they are usually still important for the local people as toponyms in way descriptions and the like. Please render historic=city_gate (not necessarily with an icon, but maybe like place=locality?).
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/historic=city_gate

[matkoniecz]

Can you give examples of city gates that should be rendered and tourism=attraction is not applicable?

example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.06490&mlon=19.94135#map=19/50.06490/19.94135 - name gets rendered thanks to tourism=attraction.

[dieterdreist]

2014/1/17 Bulwersator [email protected]

Can you give examples of city gates that should be rendered and
tourism=attraction is not applicable?

example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.06490&mlon=19.94135#map=19/50.06490/19.94135- name gets rendered thanks to tourism=attraction

adding tourism=attraction to what should be rendered is not the way I think
the map should work ;-)
All of them should IMHO be rendered, currently there are only 1000 of them
tagged in osm, but I guess if we render them their number will grow. Can
you give an example of a city gate that should not be rendered?
Here is a not so famous city gate, definitely not an attraction to the
generic visitor: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/410779713

[CloCkWeRX]

I dunno, from reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porta_Metronia - historic=yes+description? would perhaps be better (assuming the name got rendered from that tagging)

[matkoniecz]

@dieterdreist

"adding tourism=attraction to what should be rendered is not the way I think the map should work ;-)"

Yes, but adding tourism=attraction to tourism attractions is a good idea.

But I see that Porta Metronia maybe should not be tagged this way (what is quite funny as in my country any building that survived 1700 years would be instantly a major tourist attraction).

But I see even better reason to render tag in this case - existing wikipedia tag - what I reported as #317 (Render names for objects with wikipedia tag).

[dieterdreist]

2014/1/18 CloCkWeRX [email protected]

I dunno, from reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porta_Metronia -
historic=yes+description? would perhaps be better

why would it be better to change the tagging from something explicitly
describing well the nature (city gate) to something very generic and not
describing the object in a formal way?

After all, city gates are a very common and very important feature. Even if
the gate is long gone, these places still kept the name and are often very
important squares. Think of Potsdamer Platz or Mehringplatz in Berlin. It
lies in the nature of the feature that these are situated at crucial spots
in the urban topology (for centuries this have been the needle eyes where
all traffic had to pass in order to enter the city = all main streets
reflect this usually, and: these are also on the borderline between the
historic centre (inside the walls) and the more recent extension).

For everyone mapping in historical context this is (or should be) a main
feature, while for e.g. Australians or North Americans I agree it will
probably not have any significance (and won't occur, so they won't bother).

[matkoniecz]

see also #790 proposing doing this for barrier=gate

[dieterdreist]

Yes, while gates should also have their name rendered (in the few cases where a name tag is present), it's worth to point out that historic=city_gate might also be applied to places without actual gates (still the name will typically be preserved, and in a lot of cases there will be traces, e.g. an opening in the city wall).

[kocio-pl]

Are we still interested in this? How should it be rendered then?

[dieterdreist]

I’d render just a label, these are typically well known toponyms even in absence of the actual gate / structure

[kocio-pl]

There is also icon in Osmic - one should test if and when (probably z18+/z19+) to render it:

https://github.com/gmgeo/osmic/blob/master/tourism/city-gate-14.svg

[matthijsmelissen]

This is one of the oldest issues, and relatively simple to implement. Is anyone willing to work on this?

[matthijsmelissen]

Is this something for @andrzej-r perhaps?

[jragusa]

with the Osmic icon:

on building:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/317181351

on node:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5092502909

[Tomasz-W]

What about man-made grey for this feature? It would match city walls then, which often city gates are connected with. I would also like to see test renderings with just a label to compare.

[jragusa]

with man_made colour on same locations:

with label alone:

label is not displayed for the previous one (priority of street name ?). Adjacent gate:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5092502910

I'm in favour for man_made colour which is also consistent with defensive towers

[dieterdreist]

+1 to the version with icon.

[kocio-pl]

Man made black is consistent with all the towers and city walls, so I vote for this color too. @jragusa Could you prepare a PR?

[Tomasz-W]

I have got 2 more ideas:

• render also city gates tagged as relations (some of them are ruins with a few separated parts, example below)
• render historic=city_gate + ruins=yes with lighter icon (like private parkings)

Example gates:

What do you think about it?

[kocio-pl]

Lighter icon might also work for castles/palaces/stately/manors etc. - but somebody has to test it. There's also a question how the historic=ruins should look like then (see #331).

Relations might not work because currently import using osm2pgsql does not move relation properties to their members.

[matkoniecz]

render also city gates tagged as relations

these gates are tagged as multipolygons, right? In that case no special handling is needed (as long as labels for areas are displayed).