[WIP] Change retail and commercial area colors #3544
Conversation
|
The old farmland color is too brown to fit in well with commercial areas.
Retail is supposed to be the most intensive landuse, and it is of higher
interest to the general map user, so it should be at least as visually
prominent as commercial landuse, and stand out from industrial or
residential.
Perhaps a different shade of red-orange or orange would work? Yellow is
also possible, but could conflict with roads and social amenities.
…On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 12:59 PM kocio-pl ***@***.***> wrote:
Changes proposed in this pull request:
- Replace retail color with something not aggressive (reusing light
orange from what was a temporary societal area color)
We use few different reddish landcover colors. They are proper for
military or police areas, kind of violet works for industrial areas and
less intensive for commercial areas, but retail areas look like dangerous
places. I think we should change that to make them not look scary,
especially when downtown is tagged like this, for example Hannover:
Before
[image: screenshot_2018-12-01 openstreetmap carto kosmtik 1]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5439713/49323981-f30ad000-f524-11e8-9940-ba2fb9ab643f.png>
After
[image: screenshot_2018-12-01 openstreetmap carto kosmtik 2]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5439713/49323982-f69e5700-f524-11e8-8f58-8a201b040cb2.png>
Some other examples:
[image: screenshot_2018-12-01 openstreetmap carto kosmtik 3]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5439713/49323990-24839b80-f525-11e8-8cc5-b6dcc6bdb049.png>
[image: screenshot_2018-12-01 openstreetmap carto kosmtik 4]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5439713/49323992-264d5f00-f525-11e8-85ca-010c14d13826.png>
[image: screenshot_2018-12-01 openstreetmap carto kosmtik 5]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5439713/49324010-952ab800-f525-11e8-9133-41cbe4cc625b.png>
[image: screenshot_2018-12-01 openstreetmap carto kosmtik 6]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5439713/49324011-965be500-f525-11e8-9c8a-daba5042e99f.png>
[image: screenshot_2018-12-01 openstreetmap carto kosmtik 7]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5439713/49324019-d4f19f80-f525-11e8-9997-55c6e9c9d131.png>
[image: screenshot_2018-12-01 openstreetmap carto kosmtik 8]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5439713/49324021-d622cc80-f525-11e8-9698-09e824bc0f4e.png>
------------------------------
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
#3544
Commit Summary
- Change retail area color to light orange
- Darker border
File Changes
- *M* landcover.mss
<https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3544/files#diff-0>
(4)
Patch Links:
- https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3544.patch
- https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3544.diff
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3544>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshHsIbgYg9HNXyQzgdVFaCmUp6YElks5u0f60gaJpZM4Y8s0a>
.
|
|
I'm also not sure about current red colour of retail areas, because it makes them looking like some danger areas, and propably will be even more as we moved healthcare key to red. But proposed colour doesn't fit there, it looks too natural-landcover-like. |
|
Suggestion: since we are changing allotments, you could try reusing #eecfb3
for retail, or a similar colour.
This would be too similar to farmyard, so change farmyards to old farmland
#fbecd7 or similar
…On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:11 PM Tomasz Wójcik ***@***.***> wrote:
I'm also not sure about current red colour of retail areas, because it
makes them looking like some danger areas, and propably will be even more
as we moved healthcare key to red. But proposed colour doesn't fit there,
it looks too natural-landcover-like.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3544 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshOw1ccVQcRigQ3uXMpFJfR5wE8uAks5u0jmugaJpZM4Y8s0a>
.
|
|
I was just thinking farmyards could use a change now that farmland is different. #fbecd7 might work. |
|
What other color would you like to test instead? We are making green areas more consistent (some natural + semi natural vegetation and leisure/sport), also we use blue for water and ice areas, and the rest is more or less free to use for any other needs (with some natural areas like yellow for sand). The proposed color is yellow with red tint, so it still is good visible, but we have too many red-like areas, which is associated with danger in general. |
|
@kocio-pl I propose to use |
|
@Tomasz-W, same color for both huh? Gutsy. I was actually thinking there might be an advantage to that. |
|
They are very simillar to each other at the moment anyway, see: https://www.openstreetmap.org//#map=19/52.37146/9.73750. If there will be more voices to distinguish them I will look for some mix of pink (retail) + blue (offices) for commercial areas as they are a mix of retail and office functions. |
|
True. Both colors could use improvement to. Not just retail. |
Very similar to the bare ground:
|
|
@kocio-pl Please try |
|
Such retail would be close to the uniform service (police and fire departments), which are based on military background, and I feel grey for commercial is too pale: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.21179/21.01202
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.21371/21.04829
|
|
@kocio-pl Next propositions due to your remarks:
|
|
They are also quite pale, retail is close to the ground (and a bit to societal amenities) and commercial grey is hard to notice: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.2017/20.9341
|
|
What about softer tones of something similar to the industrial color? |
|
Everything is possible, it just needs to be tested. |
|
@kocio-pl Effects of my further amateur tests:
Edit: please test also |
|
Based on the last screenshots of @kocio-pl, the increasing different colours in cities starts to be a bit confusing. That's why I would follow the suggestion of @Tomasz-W to merge retail and commercial colours. Please also notice we already use the same colour than industrial for railway and it's not shocking. |
|
It makes sense to consider landuse=railway a type of industrial land. Land
used for railways is related to industrial land; the largest areas are rail
yards where cargo is moved between trucks and trains, similar to the
function of sea ports, and even small strips of land next to railways often
have an industrial feel; they are not areas meant for human habitation or
foot traffic.
Commercial areas are similar to retail in that both area consist of
non-industrial businesses at the ground level. However, retail areas are
meant to attract customers, often pedestrians, and are “areas of interest”
to general map users. Landuse=retail is where you find shops, restaurants
and entertainment; the “3rd places” you go to meet up with people outside
of work or the home.
Many commercial areas are purely office buildings. The office parks in
Silicon Valley take up hundreds of acres, and do not provide any public
services or any reason for non-employees to visit. Many single-use
commercial districts like this are found in North America and Asia.
…On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:37 PM Jérémy Ragusa ***@***.***> wrote:
Based on the last screenshots of @kocio-pl <https://github.com/kocio-pl>,
the increasing different colours in cities starts to be a bit confusing.
That's why I would follow the suggestion of @Tomasz-W
<https://github.com/Tomasz-W> to merge retail and commercial colours.
Please also notice we already use the same colour than industrial for
railway and it's not shocking.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3544 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshA_JWJo0H0robKRegNxT-sXPN5Syks5u3mOqgaJpZM4Y8s0a>
.
|
|
For me it could go either way. While I think its important to be able to tell the difference between residential/industrial areas and retail/commercial areas, its less important tell the difference between retail and commercial. Although I agree maybe its an important distinction in places like silicon valley, in a lot of others it just adds extra noise. Especially in areas where the landuse planning is crappy, there is blended landuse, and the boundary between offices and stores isn't that clear cut. Its also not so clear cut in the tagging what exactly constitutes a retail business versus an office (or even somewhere that provides a service for a fee that isn't necessarily a store). So there is ultimately no way to map it 100% accurately. Unless people have access to plot level zoning maps put out by their local government, of which most people don't have. So its a rendering difference without a purpose. For most people in most cases its enough to just know that any particular place is commerce, industrial, or residential. The icons for the specific tags make up whatever lack of clarity there be might be. Specific colors for retail and commercial areas where probably more important before all the tags related to them had specific icons. Now, the special rendering is not nearly as necessary. |
BTW - there's also quite rarely used area (at least where I live) with its own color - I mean |
|
I have united both retail and commercial under one color:
So maybe we could use similar colors for retail (bit stronger) and commercial (bit weaker) - like these both (1 & 2):
...or 0 (my original proposition) & 1:
|
kocio-pl
changed the title
|
My remarks:
PS. @kocio-pl The example which you mentioned earlier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/436159213 is a tagging mistake - I presume you can't buy a verdict in this court, what makes it non-commercial ;) |
|
I really like color 1. @Tomasz-W's suggestions also seem sound. My only question is if there is a chance that rendering commercial and retail areas exactly the same will lead to people miss-tagging them because the difference becomes superficial on a rendering level. If not, them one color works fine. If so, maybe two close shades are better. |
|
Ok, so it looks like 1 is going to be used somehow. I have no clear idea if having one color or two similar is better, I hope we can find something convincing which approach we could use (or maybe which is better). I also agree that labels should be tuned once we have area colors set. You're right with the court. It was my big misunderstanding of commercial tag definition - I thought that every kind of office area belongs here. Thanks for pointing it out! |
|
I think these are interesting examples. In the first one the retail area is really large, but it still looks really washed out. In the second, there's a lot of retail and commercial areas mapped in the center, but they aren't even visible. I don't think a color change would help either of them. I've tested the different colors from above for both at z13 and it didn't seem to help at all. Especially with the second example. Largish retail/commercial area in Gilroy. |
|
I believe there are large parking lots that are rendering at z13 in all of
the examples in the last post. The large parking lots divide the retail
area into smaller parts.
Also there may be some small parking lots that are about the size of a
pixel, for example in central Redding - this leads to mixing of the retail
(or commercial) color with the neutral gray parking lots.
Since we no longer render buildings, service roads or footways at z13
(since PR #3467), it could make sense to stop rendering parking lots as
well.
…On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 2:17 PM Adamant36 ***@***.***> wrote:
I think these are interesting examples. In the first one the retail area
is really large, but it still looks really washed out. In the second,
there's a lot of retail and commercial areas mapped in the center, but they
aren't even visible. I don't think a color change would help either of
them. I've tested the different colors from above for both at z13 and it
didn't seem to help at all. Especially with the second example.
[image: mall area]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/30259065/50533747-8bc14b00-0ae5-11e9-8ce5-8364e01efde8.png>
[image: downtown]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/30259065/50533741-6fbda980-0ae5-11e9-9b04-13f0a4adc329.png>
There's also a large retail area here that can hardly be made out. Again,
changing the color to something above probably wouldn't help much.
[image: third example]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/30259065/50533764-fc686780-0ae5-11e9-9f1e-ebaee1a16d77.png>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3544 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshCb9M5mkvfQi2Ip5HggBnQBl1pzCks5u9vr6gaJpZM4Y8s0a>
.
|
|
@jeisenbe, good call. That could help. Im sure some of it is the parking lots spliting the areas up. Which makes them harder to see at that level. |
|
Here are some renderings at 4x (four times the usually resolution) at z13 and z14 of Redding, CA. Compare to the first image in the previous comment: #3544 (comment) z13 at 4x resolution z14 at 4x resolution z15 at normal resolution The parking lots and empty lots lead to many areas of land-color and parking color, which are both nearly the same neutral light gray, and this makes it hard to see the retail areas. Compare to Kahului, which has only a few parking lots mapped around the central malls (I believe there are many smaller parking lots that have not been mapped). z14 at 4x I think we should consider no longer rendering parking lots earlier than z14 (same as buildings). |
|
Nice idea, it was something I thought myself lately. |
👍 |
|
As far I can see, this is still under discussion so I'm not merging this yet. |
matthijsmelissen
changed the title
|
I did a brief look over of the problematic places with the new change to parking. It helped some but not completely. So I still think more needs to be done to z13 for any color to work good there (including the current one). The two options I see are 1. Continue tweaking z13 and put this on hold until thats done 2. Just dont use the critism of the colors at z13 as a factor and go with what looks good at the other zoom levels (probably one of @Tomasz-W's latest colors). Personally, I dont have a prefrence. With either option we are 99% probably going with one of @Tomasz-W colors in the end anyway. So theres really no difference with doing it now versus later. Except for testing the two latest ones he wanted tested (but thats about it). |
|
@Adamant36 Please test my latest proposition from #3544 (comment) |
|
And I don't think these will work. Test renderings: Test areas:
Redding, CA:
Current Master: z13 |
|
Its still hard to see even with the parking lots removed. At least in the retail/commercial area where the Redding name is. You also can't tell the difference between the retail and commercial areas on the right side in the same pictures. I was planning on doing after tests of the places I originally used when I get some time. I'm thinking z13 will still be an issue though even without the parking lots. A couple of the examples didn't have parking lots to start with. Ultimately I think the only solution is to make retail/commercial/whatever grey at z13, because your just going to be able to tell the difference at that level whatever the color is (unless you go by the few examples of larger places that are probably miss-tagged anyway). |
|
It wouldn't make sense to unify industrial, commercial, retail and residential at z13 when we just started showing patterns at z13 to distinguish different areas, and removed buildings and parking to show the landcover/landuse better. The problem in central Redding is that the retail and commercial areas are small, and the many large highways fill up the space. But there is no trouble seeing the retail areas by the motorway and Hilltop Drive, on the right in the current master images. Correct?
|
|
@jeisenbe Both retail and commercial areas have an outlines helping distinguish them from bare ground, and you seem to didn't include them in squares visualisation (or if you included them, but they are actually so weak, we still can set them darker) PS. You really don't need to provide some 'delta' calculations tables, if you want to show that some colour would be not proper in you opinion, just upload a test rendering/s showing possible problems with proposed colour ;) |
|
I agree that we need something actionable and I still think reddish is not an option, even if it's not really visible on z13. It's just a problem with area size - most of the nice colors on midzoom would look too strong on high zoom. And because OSM Carto is not for finding things, I would like them to look reasonable on high zoom, even if midzoom would be not so visible. @jeisenbe Please say what do you think about it. @Adamant36 I understand you're upset, but please make it shorter then, repeating arguments does not help. |
|
@kocio-pl, my bad. I didn't realize that I repeated myself that much. I was just trying to get my point across, but it could have been done way more succinctly. |
|
I still think reddish is not an option
It's been an option for a number of years.
If the issue is that it looks similar to the military / danger area rendering, why not change that rendering instead?
For example, we could remove the semi-transparent fill color and only use the diagonal lines, which would also improve the issues related to color mixing.
"OSM Carto is not for finding things"
What do you mean by this comment? Personally, I use this style to find places to go shopping, parks to visit, locations to go hiking, etc.
Searching via Nominatum is also useful but not a substitute for looking at a map.
…On 1/4/19, Adamant36 ***@***.***> wrote:
@kocio-pl, my bad. I was just trying to get my point across.
--
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#3544 (comment)
|
The retail, commercial and industrial outlines first appear at z16. The tests I showed above were z13, z14 and z15, so the outline is not visible. |
|
1. don't change the color
2. Don't factor z13 into the equation
3. Go with your color (which is essentially the color we are already using ...
I first suggested `#eecfb3` which is a brown-orange color quite
different from the current rendering (`ffd6d1`) - it's as far away as
the current industrial color is from the current retail color.
I've also suggested trying `#f6dbc3` or something similar.
Other options:
4. Use the color that kocio-pl originally proposed: `#fbecd7` - Lch(94,12,82)
- This would not be my first choice, but it's an option.
5. Use another color not yet proposed.
- Most of the other proposed colors so far have been very similar to
each other. We haven't tried many options yet.
|
|
What about #ffe7e4 for retail and #f3dddc for commercial? Both are fairly close to the original colors and still view-able zoomed out, but retail doesn't look as redish and both look a lot more subtle. z19 |
|
@Adamant36 Would you like to make some before/after tests of this? It is close to the @jeisenbe proposition to merge them, but a subtle difference sounds preferable to me. |
|
Retail Z17 Before I'll do more tests after some initial feedback. |
|
Thanks. How would it look like near some police/fire service areas? I'm worried that it would be too close. |
|
what about my instances ?
|
|
@kocio-pl are you still working on this, or should it be closed? |
|
Closing as inactive. If you're interested in working on this in the future, feel free to open a new PR. |
Changes proposed in this pull request:
We use few different reddish landcover colors. They are proper for military or police areas, kind of violet works for industrial areas and less intensive for commercial areas, but retail areas look like dangerous places. I think we should change that to make them not look scary, especially when downtown is tagged like this, for example Hannover:
Before
After
Some other examples: