Add rendering for man-made cranes

[jeisenbe]

Fixes #3478

Changes proposed in this pull request:

• Add svg crane icon, rendered in man-made-color (gray) thanks to @Tomasz-W
• Add man_made=crane to project.mml file
• Render man_made=crane with initial zoom level based on height, following same zoom levels as man_made=tower
• Render name label at z17

EDITED: initial proposal was to render at z14 and z15 based on height >100 and >50, now changed to only z16 for height >50 and z17 otherwise.

Port of Singapore
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/1.2655/103.7928
z17

Future rendering at z14 (assuming height tags of 51 to 99 meters are added to these cranes; currently they would only render at z17 as above)

Milan train station
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.4851594/9.1832991
z14

z15

z16

Port of Venice
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.4729014/12.2435279
z13

z15

z17

River port cranes with name, Blauer Kran, height 24m
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/50.1129065/8.7519599
z16 Blauer Kran

z17 Blauer Kran

z17 Evo - height untagged; mapped as area (closed way)

Big Willi river boat crane - height 12m

[Tomasz-W]

@jeisenbe Please test icons for all cranes types: #3478 (comment)

[jeisenbe]

The additional icons are very nice. But I don’t think the usage of different crane types is clear enough for us to start rendering each type differently. I tried to ask about it on the tagging list but did not get a response. For now I would like to start rendering cranes with one icon, and later we can consider adding others.

…

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 4:13 PM Tomasz Wójcik ***@***.***> wrote: @jeisenbe <https://github.com/jeisenbe> Please test icons for all cranes types: #3478 (comment) <#3478 (comment)> — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3501 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshASmfbUPNa4YY4D-gVuZs4mXKfPcks5us9mMgaJpZM4YUEyu> .

[jeisenbe]

I added marker-transform: 'translate(0,-6)'; so the base of the crane will be near the node or center of the area, as suggested in #3176 "Tower Baseline Alignment"

[jeisenbe]

Renderings with marker-transform translate (0,-6) and reduced text-dy (can't forget that!):

Big Willi previous:

Big Willi new (up 6 pixels) z17:

Singapore previous:

Singapore up 6 pixels z14:

I now think it might be better to limit the zoom level to z14 for height >100m, instead of 13m as with towers. Chimneys and masts do not render above z16 and z15 respectively; only towers render at z13.

I find the tall towers a bit distracting on a city map at z13, especially in areas near the equator like Honolulu and Singapore, but at least there are not dozens of them in one place like cranes at a port.

Towers at z13 are probably fine in Stockholm or St. Petersburg near 60 degrees N, where z13 is the same as z14 at the equator.

Lebanon (tested with zoom z13 as initial level for all cranes as an example)
z13 test - rather too prominent

z14* test - probably ok

So I'm changing the code to ```

[zoom >= 14][height >= 100],
[zoom >= 15][height >= 50],
[zoom >= 16][height >= 30],
[zoom >= 17]

Agreed?

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

On 30. Nov 2018, at 18:33, Adamant36 ***@***.***> wrote: Even if they had the same height. Height doesn't determine importance in 99% of the cases.

citation needed. I would expect height to correlate with importance for many objects (not alone).

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

On 2. Dec 2018, at 10:58, Adamant36 ***@***.***> wrote: There's always exceptions ;). So what rendering level are you for then?

it depends on the icon, if the icon is small enough not to be too intrusive I would probably render them a bit later than towers

[Adamant36]

I wasn't taking issue with height in general. Yes it has importance for some objects, like crosses or memorials, only in this case. Where the difference between a 100 foot versus a 60 foot crane is minimal. In the case of how it should be rendered. Either cranes have importance in a landscape or they don't. The 40 foot difference probably doesn't matter.

They aren't a universally agreed on item of landscape or cultural importance either (unlike memorials). So there's to much variance in where people would care about them versus not for me to be comfortable with saying they should be rendered as such. I don't think map rendering should be based on the few outlier examples of places in Europe that usually get used to justify things either.

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

On 2. Dec 2018, at 11:03, Adamant36 ***@***.***> wrote: Where the difference between a 100 foot versus a 60 foot crane is minimal. In the case of how it should be rendered. Either cranes have importance in a landscape or they don't. The 40 foot difference probably doesn't matter.

exactly, the relevant difference I see is between cranes merely interesting for their function, like this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Bootskran_Typ_Maat.jpg and those that have an impact on the landscape.

[Adamant36]

Totally. There should be a different tag for them depending. Height alone isn't a good indicator of that IMHO.

[polarbearing]

in cities like Hamburg they do have cultural significance, they are part of the “panorama”

Ho ho ho, Berlin is a tourist attraction for its plentifulness of construction sites!

[jeisenbe]

The current code in this PR renders cranes at the approximately the same zoom levels as man_made=chimney That is, z16 for height > 50m and z17 otherwise. These are both industrial features that are mainly rendered as orientation points based on their height and visual prominence.

[jeisenbe]

Not many cranes are tourist sites, but a few of the big ones have become icons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_and_Goliath_(cranes)

Belfast mentions these cranes on their tourist info website:
https://visitbelfast.com/see-do/partners/samson-goliath-cranes

And this crane, which I showed above, has been tagged as tourism=attraction

[Adamant36]

So render all cranes at the same starting zoom level. Except add an exception that ones labeled as tourism=attraction get rendered a level higher. That seems like a more sane less arbitrary thing then height for me and it will also get people to tag the few significant ones as such.

[jeisenbe]

Tourism=attraction is less arbitrary than height?
Certainly not less subjective.

[Adamant36]

Both are subjective. Tourism=attraction is at least less arbitrary then height to determine what counts as a tourist attraction since its based on an actual tagging scheme for it. Unless of it being based on another tag thats a level of abstraction away.

Serious question, would you recomend rendering paths based on width instead of path type, or roads based on speed limit instead of what road clissification tag they have?

In other words, we know a road is residential road because its tagged as such. Maybe some are misstaged or the meaning/classifiction of a "residential road" isnt quit clear in places, but its at least based on an estiblashed tagging criteria for that thing. So its grounded in OSM precedence.

Height in OSM is simply meant to construe height. So although we could bicker back and forth endlessly about what height infers as far as importance, because its based on the particular objectt and different everywhere, we can at least all agree that the tourism tag is how OSM intends "tourist attractions" to be tagged. Be it a crane or any other object.

Anyway, tourism tag or not, cranes still shouldnt be tagged any earlier then z17. Thats the clear consenus. We can wait until more people come along and see if they disagree. Im fine with that. Maybe Tomasz-W would be willing to come up with a smaller icon. I dont think it would help, but at least its something. Or I could always do a PR with it rendered at z17 so it gets rendered at least and we could debate this in another issue specific to if your height thing has merit or not.

As ive said before though, theres no reason you cant just modify the code how we requested and show some examples of where it would benefit from height an other issue later if need be. That seems like the sane, fair thing to do instead of holding it up in endless debate. Especially since it seems like we just arent going to agree.

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

On 2. Dec 2018, at 12:13, polarbearing ***@***.***> wrote: Ho ho ho, Berlin is a tourist attraction for its plentifulness of construction sites

yes, at least it used to be like this, but these are construction sites, i.e. temporary in nature, as opposed to permanent cranes.

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

On 2. Dec 2018, at 15:27, Adamant36 ***@***.***> wrote: we can at least all agree that the tourism tag is how OSM intends "tourist attractions" to be tagged

let’s say, some mappers intend this tag for tourism attractions. It is not undisputed, personally I find it useless as a tag, too many attractions around, so it really depends on YOU what is attracting you. IMHO rendering the attraction tag (without additional tags that say what it is) could be more harmful than good for the map progress. Using it as a qualifier like you propose, could be ok (if the tag is applied in a consistent way around your area).

[jeisenbe]

Here are more test renderings, from Jakarta. This huge city is quite close to the equator, so z16 at this level is the same as z17 at 60 degrees north, and is about half-way between z16 and z17 for cities at 40 to 45 degrees. The cranes that I found are all located in the port terminal area.

z17 current master

z17 cranes - after PR

z18 cranes - after

z16 (no change with this PR based on current data)

[kocio-pl]

Since this discussion is inconclusive, I will merge it as it is and let's examine it on the real map for some time. I think rendering cranes is a good thing in general and such secondary problems should not eclipse that.

Thanks for both creating (icon + code) and discussing this problem!

[Adamant36]

Kocio-pl, although I agree that we shouldn't let minor details get in the way of rendering something, doesn't merging a PR like this risk making people think they can get their way by just stalling on implementing, or just ignoring, a request for something to be changed? That's essentially what happened here.

There's no reason Jeisenbe couldn't have just implement rendering at z17/z18 and then it if z16 was needed could have been decided later like multiple people requested instead of ignoring it and forcing it to now be the other way around. By merging it anyway, without him listening to feedback, your just incourging him to continue ignoring other peoples wishes. Which he's done on several issues already as it is. Not just this one. Personally, I don't think its a good way to go.

[kocio-pl]

I see. My intention is not to help ignore anything. I stated before that both ways are acceptable for me and cranes are not that popular to create immediate problem, so I guess it's safe to change it if we see it does not work the way he thinks it does.

From my experience it's more important to allow a bit of fuzziness in the project, including imperfect design, than allow discussing every bit to death to avoid any problem, because first one might be fixed in the future (or accepted eventually), while the second approach can simply paralyze team. I worry to not loose the nice balance between designing/discussing and coding we have currently.

[Adamant36]

Ok. I can understand that. I know its not an easy thing to balance everything perfectly. Especially in a project like this. Thanks for the explanation.

[jeisenbe]

I would have been happy to change the zoom level to 17/18 if any of the maintainers requested the change, but I’m working on several other bugs and issues, so I didn’t want to put more work into this PR than necessary. If anyone finds any problems related to this PR, I will be happy to make a new PR to fix it.

…

On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 8:32 AM Adamant36 ***@***.***> wrote: Ok. I can understand that. I know its not an easy thing to balance everything perfectly. Especially in a project like this. Thanks for the explanation. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3501 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshC7KHD-Hc8F9a1gw26Pn32INHu6Tks5u5DUqgaJpZM4YUEyu> .

[kocio-pl]

Thanks, nice to hear that. This is also one of my reasons to not get deeper into this problem - I have some big changes proposals pending at the table, which will affect the style much more than all cranes combined...

[Adamant36]

@jeisenbe So if me or someone else starts a new issue about it (or even requests a change to another issue), you'll blow it off because they aren't "maintainers"? Seems like a good way to get people to not to work with you anymore and end up with a bad map. Maintainers might merge the PRs, but they only constitute a small part of the feedback on the and make even less design decisions then the contributors who arent maintainers do. We are relient on feedback from others. Including myself. Personally, I dont priortize feedback based on the "status" the person giving it. Otherwise, its a good way to alienate myself (probably not anymore then writting these types of messages though..But whatever).