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
Have more contrast between leisure=garden and internal items #4910
Comments
This would be rendering leisure=garden as leisure=park: |
I don't think conflating Independent of that you probably noticed that in your example the micro-mapped central area is almost identical in both versions you show. But you are right on one point - the use of grass color as base color for several different landcover fills ( |
Personally I prefer the initial (existing) version (which looks splendid!). The flower beds etc. are "ornaments" in a garden, so it both looks coherent and is semantically coherent to use a single shade. The issue of paths being poorly distinguished reflects the weak (IMHO) styling of paths, especially the "unknown surface" style. There would be a bit more contrast if |
Expected behavior
All internal mapped concrete areas (grass, trees, water) are clearly defined within a functional area (
leisure=garden
)Actual behavior
Currently when you have a garden that has been fully mapped with concrete items like grass, trees, flowers etc. The contrast between these items and the places that have not had any concrete items is very low. This results in poor distinction when paths start and stop and makes everything blur together.
My suggestion to solve this would be to experiment with similar rendering/colors to
leisure=park
.Screenshots with links illustrating the problem
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: