Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, cycleway, path, track highway areas #4096

pnorman · 2020-03-29T05:26:06Z

Fixes #3995
Fixes #1967

Removes the rendering of highway=residential area=yes and highway=unclassified area=yes polygons. In #3995 these were established to commonly be a tagging mistake.

jeisenbe · 2020-03-29T07:01:53Z

project.mml

              ('railway_' || (CASE WHEN (railway IN ('platform')
                              AND (tags->'location' NOT IN ('underground') OR (tags->'location') IS NULL)
                              AND (tunnel NOT IN ('yes', 'building_passage') OR tunnel IS NULL)
                              AND (covered NOT IN ('yes') OR covered IS NULL))
                              THEN railway END))
            ) AS feature
          FROM planet_osm_polygon
-          WHERE highway IN ('residential', 'unclassified', 'pedestrian', 'service', 'footway', 'track', 'path', 'platform')
+          WHERE highway IN ('pedestrian', 'service', 'footway', 'cycleway', 'track', 'path', 'platform')


I see this adds back highway=cycleway, which is currently missing from this selection.

Do we actually want to render highway=cycleway areas?

Are there really areas where bicycles may travel freely in any direction?

I haven't given it much thought either way. The WHERE clauses were the only places missing cycleway, we were attempting to render it in the MSS and the COALESCE

pnorman · 2020-03-30T01:05:16Z

#1967 requests removing footway, cycleway, track, and path so I'm going to add those

These are also mainly inappropriately used where area:highway could be used instead.

jeisenbe

Thank you, this will remove several confusing renderings. Test images in Latvia show that most current examples of these features are mistakes, eg roundabouts or turning circles mapped as area=yes or highway=footway areas that should be mapped as highway=pedestrian areas instead, and the current rendering for highway=track and highway=residential/unclassified is confusing.

highway=track area+yes current

track after

highway=unclassified + area=yes before

unclassified after

A building is currently hidden by the rendering.

highway=footway + area=yes

footway area after

polarbearing · 2020-03-30T16:19:10Z

What is wrong with area=yes on a footway (unless of course it is abused for the width of a linear feature)? It is very popular for minor areas of omnidirectional foot traffic, such as the round area in the middle of a park where all footways meet and you have some benches around. This is too insignificant for me to be a "highway=pedestrian". What is the logic to render area=yes on pedestrian but not on footway?

The example above with the hidden house is a tagging error, it should have been cut out as a MP.

Do we start dropping all rendering where a tagging mistake has been found?

HolgerJeromin · 2020-03-31T07:57:37Z

What is wrong with area=yes on a footway (unless of course it is abused for the width of a linear feature)?

I added another example in:
#1967 (comment)

jeisenbe · 2020-03-31T08:08:59Z

What is wrong with area=yes on a footway (unless of course it is abused for the width of a linear feature)

While many examples are misused in such a way, it appears that majority of features with this tag are small pedestrian areas.

The problem with the current rendering is that it works well with highway=pedestrian, since the fill and casing colors are the same, but it doesn't look anything like footways or cycleways.

polarbearing · 2020-03-31T14:42:39Z

The problem with the current rendering is that it works well with highway=pedestrian, since the fill and casing colors are the same, but it doesn't look anything like footways

A solution would be to unify the appearance of linear highway=footway and =pedestrian, in the current pedestrian style (grey) just with different width (footway a bit narrower). That would also reduce the noise from the red footways.

IIRC there were attempt to do something like that here in the past, e.g. here:
1327#issuecomment-75430044

polarbearing · 2020-03-31T14:52:22Z

As for highway=track areas, they are certainly rendered too prominently, a good approach would to adapt them more to the track appearance, e.g. making them darker and/or use some hatching or pattern.

imagico

The following data on the different highway types - and highway=pedestrian for comparison:

type	count	area=yes + relations	wiki documenting use on polygons
unclassified	13M	4166 + 197	no
residential	51M	20704 + 1305	no
track	18M	5612 + 277	no
path	8M	1950 + 265	no
footway	12M	53371 + 6979	yes
pedestrian	570k	160959 + 22536	yes

Based on that for unclassified, residential, track and path i'd say removing rendering due to a lack of broad use and acceptance by mappers is in order. For highway=footway i'd say more that this seems to be a synonym for highway=pedestrian when used on polygons - i can see no systematic difference between those in use or documentation - and as such it would be good to remove it - despite there being some use. But that is not a very strong opinion on my side - after all such use is nearly 1/3 of that of highway=pedestrian and you could argue that it is a well established synonym.

Have not tested the code but @jeisenbe seems to have done that.

polarbearing · 2020-04-02T13:46:11Z

I disagree strongly.

First, this is yet another example of the current practice, that after discussing a certain change in rendering for one feature, another feature is included in this change on the last minute, without being sufficiently discussed.

In this case, the proposed change is not even present in the title of this PR, it is kind of a stealth removal.

Second, the PR now removes a feature used 55 k + 7k = 62k times, documented in the wiki and not declared as deprecated.

The removal will cause pointless mechanical changing such areas to highway=pedestrian, which they often aren't.

While @imagico sees them as synonyms, I see a difference. There are plenty other examples that are tagged differently but rendered identical. OSM is a database that is not just driving this style. It has other applications where this distinction is significant.

imagico · 2020-04-02T13:57:54Z

Clearing up a few misconceptions:

reviews of this PR are based on all the proposed changes - both me and @jeisenbe specifically discussed the changes that were not originally included.
the main basis of rendering decisions here is actual use of tags as it can be observed in the database. Neither the wiki nor what individual mappers view different tags to mean or supposed to mean have a particular significance.
any analysis and demonstration that highway=footway is used on polygons systematically with a different meaning than highway=pedestrian would be most welcome.

jeisenbe · 2020-04-02T23:13:03Z

To clarify: I am happy with merging this PR as-is, because the highway=footway + area=yes features are usually small areas, they are not large pedestrian plazas or public squares which require a special rendering so that the center of a town or city will be represented properly.

However, if @pnorman decides to keep the current rendering of highway=footway + area=yes as identical to highway=pedestrian + area=yes, I would also support that. Either way is fine by me.

imagico

Just noticed that this will need to remove label drawing for these in roads-area-text-name as well - otherwise this is confusing.

This keeps the layer consistent with the changes to the fills.

pnorman · 2020-04-05T02:04:12Z

First, this is yet another example of the current practice, that after discussing a certain change in rendering for one feature, another feature is included in this change on the last minute, without being sufficiently discussed.

Additional changes were added to the PR in response to comments from a review.

In this case, the proposed change is not even present in the title of this PR, it is kind of a stealth removal.

I've now edited the title to reflect the changes.

Second, the PR now removes a feature used 55 k + 7k = 62k times, documented in the wiki and not declared as deprecated.

I don't consider the wiki status as important as the actual usage numbers.

Based on that for unclassified, residential, track and path i'd say removing rendering due to a lack of broad use and acceptance by mappers is in order.

I'm not sure, based on the table I see use. Not as much as pedestrian, obviously, but more than the other roads in the table.

New commits

jeisenbe · 2020-04-05T05:16:15Z

Based on that for unclassified, residential, track and path i'd say removing rendering due to a lack of broad use and acceptance by mappers is in order.

I'm not sure, based on the table I see use. Not as much as pedestrian, obviously, but more than the other roads in the table.

@pnorman - do you mean you are not sure about highway=footway areas? I

t's true that area tagging of those features is more common that the others on the list: about 1 out of 200 footway features are currently mapped as areas, while for the others on the list there are less than 1 per 1000.

Like I've said, I support removing the rendering of residential, unclassified, track and cycleway area renderings, but I can go either way about highway=footway - it's odd to render it the same as highway=pedestrian, but we could work on fixing that later, if necessary.

jeisenbe · 2020-04-05T07:12:21Z

I've checked the local data in Oregon, and I noticed that the great majority of highway=footway + area=yes closed ways also have a man_made=pier or public_transport=platform feature:

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Sob - 44 total features
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Soc - 39 with man_made=pier or public_transport=platform

Overall, a smaller percentage of highway=footway areas have this combination: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Sod - 3416 total. I believe the iD editor was adding these tags to piers and platforms automatically, so this mapping is probably not intentional.

In the case of platform, the correct tag is highway=platform for the bus platforms which were mapped in Oregon (or sometimes railway=platform in other contexts):

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/44.04760/-123.07723

For the piers, the tagging is not exactly wrong, but it's not commonly added by mappers who are not using iD:

Here are the other 5 features in the State:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/45.50853/-122.67222

Two adjacent square areas in a park:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/44.04177/-123.06829

Error: addition of highway=footway + area=yes to leisure=track

Rendering with this PR:

Requested change in roads-area-text-name has been made

jeisenbe · 2020-04-05T07:27:14Z

Man made piers + highway=pedestrian:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/44.80906/-124.05909

Current

After

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/44.98982/-123.99457
before

after

jeisenbe · 2020-04-10T01:08:33Z

@pnorman - I'm waiting for you to merge this PR as-is or make changes if you want.

Do you plan to merge it soon, including removing the rendering of highway=footway areas, or change it to keep the rendering of highway=footway for now?

pnorman · 2020-04-10T02:15:36Z

Do you plan to merge it soon, including removing the rendering of highway=footway areas, or change it to keep the rendering of highway=footway for now?

I'll change it

jeisenbe · 2020-04-10T05:17:18Z

project.mml

@@ -1758,7 +1758,7 @@ Layer:
            name
          FROM planet_osm_polygon
          WHERE way && !bbox!
-            AND (highway IN ('residential', 'unclassified', 'pedestrian', 'service', 'footway', 'cycleway', 'living_street', 'track', 'path', 'platform')


'footway' is missing here

polarbearing · 2020-04-10T14:17:34Z

If I understand correctly, area/footway is being kept for now. Could this please been reflected in the title? It seems that the message to osm-talk still included the removal, probably by copy/pasting?

jeisenbe · 2020-04-10T15:25:29Z

Sorry, that should not have been in the list of changes for v5.1.0. I've updated the title of this PR.

changes made

jeisenbe

Thanks, looks ready to merge

polarbearing · 2020-04-24T15:38:11Z

footway still in the title?

jeisenbe · 2020-04-25T17:57:17Z

Title updated, thank you for catching that.

Remove rendering of residential & unclassified highway areas

921d7d5

pnorman requested a review from matkoniecz March 29, 2020 05:26

jeisenbe reviewed Mar 29, 2020

View reviewed changes

Remove rendering of more highway areas

0a3d4dc

These are also mainly inappropriately used where area:highway could be used instead.

jeisenbe previously approved these changes Mar 30, 2020

View reviewed changes

pnorman requested a review from imagico April 2, 2020 04:37

imagico approved these changes Apr 2, 2020

View reviewed changes

imagico added the remove rendering label Apr 3, 2020

imagico previously requested changes Apr 3, 2020

View reviewed changes

pnorman changed the title ~~Remove rendering of residential & unclassified highway areas~~ Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, and non-motorized highway areas Apr 5, 2020

Remove some roads from roads-area-text-name

31f46c4

This keeps the layer consistent with the changes to the fills.

pnorman changed the title ~~Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, and non-motorized highway areas~~ Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, cycleway, footway, etc highway areas Apr 5, 2020

jeisenbe approved these changes Apr 5, 2020

View reviewed changes

Restore highway=footway area rendering

63554eb

jeisenbe previously requested changes Apr 10, 2020

View reviewed changes

jeisenbe changed the title ~~Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, cycleway, footway, etc highway areas~~ Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, cycleway, footway, path highway areas Apr 10, 2020

pnorman self-assigned this Apr 10, 2020

Restore footway area names

67df615

kocio-pl added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 11, 2020

#4096 has not been merged

ff5c6a7

jeisenbe approved these changes Apr 13, 2020

View reviewed changes

pnorman merged commit bd22cf5 into gravitystorm:master Apr 15, 2020

pnorman deleted the drop_minor_road_areas branch April 15, 2020 23:39

jeisenbe changed the title ~~Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, cycleway, footway, path highway areas~~ Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, cycleway, path, track highway areas Apr 25, 2020

jeisenbe added a commit to jeisenbe/openstreetmap-carto that referenced this pull request Apr 25, 2020

Update CHANGELOG.md for PRs gravitystorm#4102 and gravitystorm#4096

884e74e

imagico mentioned this pull request Jul 16, 2022

bug: turning circles on private track roads coloured wrong #4334

Open

imagico mentioned this pull request Aug 6, 2022

Request to restore rendering for highway=track + area=yes #4637

Open

imagico mentioned this pull request May 2, 2023

Request to render highway=residential & area=yes #4811

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, cycleway, path, track highway areas #4096

Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, cycleway, path, track highway areas #4096

pnorman commented Mar 29, 2020 •

edited

jeisenbe Mar 29, 2020

pnorman Mar 29, 2020

pnorman commented Mar 30, 2020

jeisenbe left a comment

polarbearing commented Mar 30, 2020

HolgerJeromin commented Mar 31, 2020

jeisenbe commented Mar 31, 2020

polarbearing commented Mar 31, 2020 •

edited

polarbearing commented Mar 31, 2020

imagico left a comment

polarbearing commented Apr 2, 2020

imagico commented Apr 2, 2020

jeisenbe commented Apr 2, 2020

imagico left a comment

pnorman commented Apr 5, 2020

jeisenbe commented Apr 5, 2020

jeisenbe commented Apr 5, 2020

jeisenbe commented Apr 5, 2020

jeisenbe commented Apr 10, 2020

pnorman commented Apr 10, 2020

jeisenbe Apr 10, 2020

polarbearing commented Apr 10, 2020

jeisenbe commented Apr 10, 2020

jeisenbe left a comment

polarbearing commented Apr 24, 2020

jeisenbe commented Apr 25, 2020

Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, cycleway, path, track highway areas #4096

Remove rendering of residential, unclassified, cycleway, path, track highway areas #4096

Conversation

pnorman commented Mar 29, 2020 • edited

jeisenbe Mar 29, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pnorman Mar 29, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pnorman commented Mar 30, 2020

jeisenbe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

polarbearing commented Mar 30, 2020

HolgerJeromin commented Mar 31, 2020

jeisenbe commented Mar 31, 2020

polarbearing commented Mar 31, 2020 • edited

polarbearing commented Mar 31, 2020

imagico left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

polarbearing commented Apr 2, 2020

imagico commented Apr 2, 2020

jeisenbe commented Apr 2, 2020

imagico left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pnorman commented Apr 5, 2020

jeisenbe commented Apr 5, 2020

jeisenbe commented Apr 5, 2020

jeisenbe commented Apr 5, 2020

jeisenbe commented Apr 10, 2020

pnorman commented Apr 10, 2020

jeisenbe Apr 10, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

polarbearing commented Apr 10, 2020

jeisenbe commented Apr 10, 2020

jeisenbe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

polarbearing commented Apr 24, 2020

jeisenbe commented Apr 25, 2020

pnorman commented Mar 29, 2020 •

edited

polarbearing commented Mar 31, 2020 •

edited