man_made=pier, finer? color?

[AllroadsNL]

Rendering is to big on z17.

Also other zoom levels needs a finer adjustment. higher and lower z.

z16

Does it need to be visible on z12 - z14, z15.
I do not think so, maybe z15 could be discussed.
Is it needed for the overall view? Me, no.

Is white the best color for a pier?
This white looks, if it is not balanced with the surrounding.

[pnorman]

Is white the best color for a pier?
This white looks, if it is not balanced with the surrounding.

It's not white, it's the same land colour as the background.

[AllroadsNL]

This, I thought so, like the man_made=reinforced_slope.

[meased]

I have always thought that piers are way too thick. Large piers should probably be drawn as areas anyway, so piers drawn as ways should be assumed to be just wide enough to walk on.

I am ok with the land color as it has nice contrast with the water.

[imagico]

We currently do not render any lines in a width that corresponds to a real life width on the ground, some time ago the decisions was made not to have this anywhere in this style (see #1853 (comment))

[AllroadsNL]

We currently do not render any lines in a width that corresponds to a real life width on the ground, some time ago the decisions was made not to have this anywhere in this style

If the line was not rendered then the background color where a pier should be, should not been seen.
Water is not all blue.
The pier is rendered, as a line .........

It is half done.

You set a pier on the map or not, render it fully or not.

Because it is half done, you get all the issue's for a reason, like I did, just seeing the map and made the conclusion this is not good.

[pnorman]

If the line was not rendered then the background color where a pier should be, should not been seen.
Water is not all blue.
The pier is rendered, as a line .........

I'm having a hard time comprehending what you're trying to say, could you try rephrasing it?

[AllroadsNL]

Hope this clears it up, not native language, gives these hick ups. I suppose.

If it was not rendered, then there was not a hole in the water area, then you could not see the background.

The man_made=pier is rendered making a open spot in the water area.
This means the man_made=pier is rendered with transparent or not drawn outline and not drawn shape.
The vector(line) is there but we do not see it.
We see it, because there is a hole in the water and different background color.

In Carto the man_made=pier (line) is mentioned to do so, (rendering)
Line is giving a wide, in the several zoomlevels. This could be changed to appropriate zoomlevel wide.
Or drawn outline or shape, coloring.

[matthijsmelissen]

This means the man_made=pier is rendered with transparent or not drawn outline and not drawn shape.

This is not correct. Piers are rendered with a line that happens to have the same color as the background of the map. The result is the same, of course.

[AllroadsNL]

My misunderstanding.

Still to thick and visible on z12 - z14, z15.

in a width that corresponds to a real life width on the ground,

but the proportion to other map objects must be right.

[imagico]

in a width that corresponds to a real life width on the ground,

but the proportion to other map objects must be right.

I agree - in particular in this case since the color does not imply an abstract line but a real world geometry - this is a model case of confusion between a styling element and a mapped geometry as we come time ago discussed in #2462.

One option would be - since a pier is kind of like a footway bridge - to render it in a styling that resembles the way we render footway bridges (like here).

[matkoniecz]

Given that walkable man_made=pier are supposed to be tagged also with highway=footway (or other highway=* tag if appropriate), maybe we can just stop rendering this object and expect people to add missing tags?

One option would be - since a pier is kind of like a footway bridge - to render it in a styling that resembles the way we render footway bridges (like here).

I would be against this solution as it would mask missing data.

[HolgerJeromin]

Given that walkable man_made=pier are supposed to be tagged also with highway=footway (or other highway=* tag if appropriate)

This is surprising and not mentioned in the wiki

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:man_made%3Dpier

Only 2,7 % have a highway tag: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=man_made&value=pier#combinations

[pnorman]

Given that walkable man_made=pier are supposed to be tagged also with highway=footway (or other highway=* tag if appropriate), maybe we can just stop rendering this object and expect people to add missing tags?

No, that's incorrect.

I looked at a few piers. Overall, I'm happy with how piers on z17 are currently being rendered.

[matkoniecz]

No, that's incorrect

Yes, you are right. I confused my preferred tagging with one that is really used.

[matkoniecz]

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/sxQ finds man_made=pier with highway tag other than highway=path/footway

It turns out that there are mutiple cases with highway=pedestrian, highway=service, highway=steps.

(note, I started discussion on tagging mailing list about tagging if this feature)