Parking fill color is the same as living street fill color

[jeisenbe]

Expected behavior

• Parking lots should be clearly distinguished from living street ways and areas

Actual behavior

• The newer parking-fill color, #eeeeee is Lch (94,0,180)
• This is indistinguishable from living-street-fill color, #ededed - also Lch (94,0,180)
• Only the casing is different

[jeisenbe]

Also, parking-outline still uses saturate(darken but I think the saturate doesn't do anything, since saturation is 0.

[imagico]

Not as close but there are various other cases where unrelated features are rendered with very similar fill colors. Specifically apron and pedestrian colors are very close now - as well as #2353, #2905.

I am generally not sure if there is agreement among maintainers that differences in fill colors should represent differences in meaning and colors should therefore not be overloaded for unrelated purposes. Similarity to other unrelated color played no role in discussion of most of these changes (#2292, #2934, #3444) and i am not sure if that is because it was being overlooked or if it was considered not to matter when the change was made. We also have cases with a deliberate choice to aggregate things fairly dissimilar in meaning into a common color (#3843 (comment)). From my perspective it comes all back to #2270.

[jeisenbe]

The apron vs pedestrian color similarity appears to have been overlooked in #3444 and the related issue #3385, from what I can see. There was discussion of using the parking color, since aprons are parking areas for aircraft, but then the current color was picked to be a little more visibly related to taxiways.

It doesn't look like there was any discussion of the similarity between the new parking color and living-street-fill in #2934 or #2904 - these things are easy to miss if you don't look for them carefully.

[kocio-pl]

Could you show real problems with that? I don't remember a single time I had mistaken them.

[jeisenbe]

For some reason highway=living-street areas do not have a casing, unlike highway=pedestrian and highway=residential areas, otherwise they look identical to parking lots:

z15 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/52.5183/13.1686

Only the parking icon makes it obvious at higher zoom levels (and these can be blocked by other icons, since they are low-priority)

z16

z17

There are 1877 ways with highway=living_street and area=yes or relations with highway=living_street which will render in this way currently.

This blocks adding a proper casing to highway=living_street areas, since they would then be nearly identical to parking lots.

[jeisenbe]

#eeeeee and #ededed (Lch 94,0,180) are also very close to land-color: #f2efe9 (Lch 95,3,91) - the lightness is only 1 different, and the chroma is only 3 instead of 0. This gives a delta of 3.3. The living street areas look similar to untagged land right now, since there is no casing.

[jeisenbe]

These might be better examples:

• https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.80352/7.15476
• https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/678701467#map=18/50.78898/7.21401
• https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2413164#map=18/50.68254/10.93821

Could all be mistaken for parking lots

[kocio-pl]

The only problem I see is Spandau areas example (the first one), so this effect looks very limited to me and I don't believe there are many disconnected areas like this. When areas are connected to the road system, it is totally clear to me that this is not a parking space. There is also interesting case here (near the last example), where parking is connected to a living street line and this is also something that leaves me no doubts:

[jeisenbe]

When areas are connected to the road system, it is totally clear to me

Since we are both very familiar with this style and in this case we are thinking about the difference, we would probably be able to distinguish the two features no matter what color was used for `parking`. But that is not an argument in favor of combining `living-street` and `parking` under the same color. We should also consider the new map user, who may never have heard of a "living street" (they are not common outside of central Europe), or even a highway area. Also, when an area is incompletely mapped, for example the living street area which is missing a connection to the linear road network, this should also be visible. I'm not claiming that this is a top-priority issue, but it is a minor problem that should be fixed if possible.

[kocio-pl]

Sorry if it sounded like rejection, I didn't mean it. Maybe you're right and somebody else could see this problem more clearly. I just provided my review and my conclusion is that it's much smaller issue than I expected.

[pnorman]

I think there is a problem with the closeness of colour, but living streets aren't common where I map so I'm not the right person to evaluate what changes make sense.

[danieldegroot2]

Something similar happens with building passage. Combined with parking aisle, the service ways almost look disconnected.
(however, our brain allows us to zoom out and see it's supposed to be a continuous line and ignores this detail otherwise.)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.64812/-7.25142

[imagico]

Yes, this shows that the tunnel fill color of white roads:

openstreetmap-carto/style/roads.mss

Line 65 in 445e553

@residential-tunnel-fill: darken(@residential-fill, 5%);

is also fairly similar (slightly brighter) compared to both living street fill and parking fill:

For comparison the AC-style: