gravitystorm
Render Residential Gardens less dominant.
We from the austrian community had a almost over 5-7 years a discussion about a specific issue regarding mapping of residential gardens - especially that they were once used to make everything greener.
Now they are all wiki-conform mapped, but still render too dominant green for areas that are not usable by the public.
This is why I suggest taking the same (genius) approch CoMaps did: Making Residential Gardens less dominant colorwise. This would also help to get rid of such awkward borders:
If any maintainer has any further questions - dm me @ kaiserschmarren on discord Im not that active on Github - thats why.
Im linking some prior Discussions about these special cases (in german) here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/aufraumarbeiten-und-vereinheitlichung-im-westen-von-wien-bereinigung-landuses/133020/11 https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/private-garten-im-westen-wiens/127379 ...
Thanks for the suggestion.
Please always provide links to the sample locations you show.
The tag in question seems to be garden:type=residential. That tag is used both for micromapping decorative plantations - like here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1306692965 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1241940672 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/533986785
and for coarse mapping of relatively green urban areas with lots of plants. Like:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1185658673 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/611775293 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14650211
I am not quite sure in what way the current rendering of leisure=garden is considered dominant and what the problem of awkward borders is.
Related to #4910.
Some examples: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/48.183528/16.281577&layers=N https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/48.199235/16.260366&layers=N https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/48.21195/16.23618&layers=N the main problem is that it is almost not distinctable from grass or gardens with use for public people. I can't differenciate the following polygons: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/303447131 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/554613619 or https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/297013924 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/296627960
Edit: here the discussion on CoMaps: https://codeberg.org/comaps/comaps/issues/963#issuecomment-5907295 and https://codeberg.org/comaps/comaps/issues/1055
Well, since it's allowed to (micro-) tag even small, private "garden:type=residential" gardens, the tagging of the residential gardens in the examples seems to be ok. But all in all I'm with @RealKaiserschmarren.
I think a general map like Carto should more focus on rendering (grey) landuses - like "landuse=residential" of the examples, instead of rendering (green) tiny residential gardens above it. Other maps like BEV-Austrian Map, Google Maps or Kompass Map just render larger, mostly named gardens with green. But not residential gardens - they with the same color like surrounding residential area.
A solution could be either render residential gardens just in high zoom levels, e.g. >=18 . Or at least use a much less saturated green-tone (=green towards the grey of landuse=residential)
I think a general map like Carto should more focus on rendering (grey) landuses - like "landuse=residential" of the examples, instead of rendering (green) tiny residential gardens above it
I disagree here. A key goal of Carto is to provide mapper feedback, so mappers can see what they have added. If people do micromap residential gardens, it would seem perverse to deliberately filter them out.
G**gle maps and navigation maps will obviously want to filter out residential gardens since they are a distraction from the goals of their maps.
A solution could be either render residential gardens just in high zoom levels, e.g. >=18 . Or at least use a much less saturated green-tone (=green towards the grey of landuse=residential)
Gardens are currently rendered from Z10, with pattern appearing from Z13. We currently postpone showing some private features by one or two zoom levels, but starting at Z18 would look odd (not rendering and then suddenly appearing).
I disagree here. A key goal of Carto is to provide mapper feedback, so mappers can see what they have added. If people do micromap residential gardens, it would seem perverse to deliberately filter them out.
G**gle maps and navigation maps will obviously want to filter out residential gardens since they are a distraction from the goals of their maps.
Yes, for broader context: Among digital maps OSM-Carto (and its forks) are among the maps with the most differentiated depiction of landcovers. We pioneered the use of random relaxed pictorial and structure patterns as an additional means of differentiation beyond what is possible with color alone. We do so intentionally to provide mappers with differentiated feedback and to allow map users from different regions to observe those differentiations that are important for them - which vary strongly depending on culture and climate.
Generally speaking we start showing most landcovers early and just introduce patterns later. This is meant to avoid showing patterns when the geometries are typically too small in size for the pattern to be visible (see #3862). We moved away from selectively showing some physically defined landcovers later in general to avoid misleading gaps in rendering (see #3980).
Ideas for differentiating leisure=garden based on garden:type and/or access=* in a subtle way are welcome. But i don't see garden:type=residential being generally used on smaller features than other leisure=garden - hence making starting zoom levels depend on that seems poorly motivated. Generally increasing the starting zoom level for the pattern for leisure=garden to z14 or z15 might be an idea.
And private access to a garden does not make it irrelevant for the map user in general. Private gardens affect even people who have no access to them - they influence microclimate, air quality and general aesthetics of an area.