Add rendering for amenity=fountain #705
Comments
|
At the time there are was a desire to do many other things first so it was not a big deal. That and I did try and too much in the pull request (I had no idea we wanted to keep things differently then just to try and get stuff added). The stylesheet has changed a lot since then. Maybe we can add this now. Wow it was peaceful in April 2013 on this project before it became the main map on osm.org. Brings back memories. |
|
Some questions: do we really want an icon for every fountain? What about a tiny fountain in someones garden? A small ventilation fountain in a pond? Even for slightly larger public fountains, an icon might attract more attention than it deserved. |
|
I don't think that will be a real issue. True there is no distinction between tiny fountains and large more notable ones. But lvl17 should be ok for both cases. Large fountains should really be rendered they are worth it and people do map them. |
|
2014-07-09 14:15 GMT+02:00 math1985 [email protected]:
I think a name is more important than an icon. If the colour is waterlike, |
|
It would also be an option to only render icons for fountains that have names. |
|
2014-07-09 16:46 GMT+02:00 math1985 [email protected]:
yes, still I would not render the icons (or only in very high zooms), |
|
way_area may be a better idea. Some big and well known fountains frequently used as orientation points have no names but are distinguishable from small ventilation fountain in a pond by area. See for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/165129826 |
|
In the park I think every fountain is noticeable, frequently they are set in defining points of the space, even if they have no name. |
|
I think noticable enough to be rendered maybe if way_area for bigger ones at another zoom level too. |
|
I agree with @dieterdreist that names should be displayed if possible. An icon is not necessary IMHO, in close zooms the area will be visible and in long zooms it should not clutter the map. Is it necessary to make a fountain look different than a lake? Maybe a thicker outline? Or - fancy - a signature in the area with a fountain symbol? |
|
At least render amenity=fountain as area like a swimming pool or a lake, nowadays for the rendering it's used natural=water (which Osmose marks as an error "Conflict between tags amenity, natural") |
matthijsmelissen
changed the title
|
This is an example where rendering amenity=fountain would be overkill. Every crossing has a fountain. |
|
I don't get why this example is a rationale for closing the issue. I can easily show why rendering trees or even restaurants and shops would be an "overkill". And this is only one location, while I see many shopping & eating areas, where we have a serious readability problem. Please reopen the issue, as there was no agreement that we don't need representation of the fountains. |
Sorry, hit the wrong button and didn't mean to close it. Thanks for noticing. |
|
math1985: be aware that there are lot's of amenity=fountains being mapped as closed ways / polygons. I already rendered fountains as points, but in the past two days added fountains as closed ways / polygons, and have now discovered that in for example Rome, that there at least as much or even more fountains tagged as closed ways, as there are single node / point objects of fountains. I agree with others that an icon may not be the most suitable rendering for point object fountains. I render a small blue saturated dot, which works out quite nicely, look at for example my Paris map on the OpenStreetMap forum (which doesn't yet have the fountains as closed ways, because I didn't re-render and upload new versions of the maps yet, also not for the Rome map). Here are two images of my current fountain rendering (including the closed ways) for the Villa Borghese in Rome, and the current rendering on OSM, notice the two quite big lakes on the left... (hmmm... I now notice I am missing a entire theatre building compared to the CartoCSS OSM rendering... must have a look at that):
|
|
2014-09-24 23:24 GMT+02:00 mboeringa [email protected]:
I'm in Rome too. Looking at my own map I also discovered that rendering an On the other hand there are some big, famous fountains, sometimes also by Another famous one is this here: or here (less famous I guess, but quite big): another qualifier for some would be to look for the combination with |
|
To be honest I am not sure why at say zoom=17 it wouldn't be totally acceptable to display all. True some big historic cities might have a concentration of them but other place of a few hundred thousand people might just have 1 or two in the whole city and it would be nice if they were displayed even if they are not famous. |
|
Especially as for any given feature it is possible to find place where there is an extreme density of it. |
|
What is actually the meaning of a fountain area? Does it only cover the 'wet' area, or the entire structure? |
|
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dfountain proposes mapping them as nodes within natural=water area :( |
|
2014-09-25 13:42 GMT+02:00 Rovastar [email protected]:
yes, we could display the node ones (but I expect more fountains to be |
|
2014-09-25 13:58 GMT+02:00 math1985 [email protected]:
IMHO an area always covers what the tag says, in this case the "fountain", |
|
In that case, I don't think a blue rendering is appropriate. |
But it is the most recognizable one (if combined with name label)... and people also seem to tag small artificial water bodies, like small to medium ponds, with single or multiple fountains within them as amenity=fountain with a closed way. So although maybe not wholly appropriate in all cases (which by definition is impossible for the OSM database), it certainly won't be much off the mark either in most cases. In reality, I now render closed way fountains in water blue with a medium sized grey outline, which kind of emphasizes the stone "structure" often found around a fountain or fountain basin, and label them. |
I would use tourism=attraction as the only qualifier for fountain importance, if there needs to be any. In most cases, looking at the maps rendered with my renderer (see: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=26451), this gives a rather good picture of landmark tourist attractions. |
|
So probably:
Does it make sense? |
|
If the entire water basin should be covered, how do we tag fountains like this? |
|
I think this is a point fountain (or maybe just a nozzle if smaller) inside wider water area. We left it to the mappers to tell what is the scope of the fountain. |
from my own rendering experience I suggest to render just a name and no icon
this is not an established tag AFAIK and I'd contest it on a semantic level and neither would it integrate well with the tagging scheme in general This should be discussed on tagging ML |
+1, for sure we won't tag the whole lake as a fountain |
From my experience probably most are just decorative points in park with no name. The whole discussion took place because we wanted to also include some big fountain areas, where there's a need for separate tagging individual nozzles and the fountain as the whole. In my proposition (I will ask about it on tagging list) both - very different - types can have sane, even if not the best, rendering. What's your experience then and what to do with small fountains with no name then? |
my experience was that either fountains prevented other, subjectively more important features from rendering (high priority), or they popped up and re-disappeared in a random way (lower priority), because the symbol and text together occupied too much space and because of a lot of fountains in the area, a few big important and many small ones. fountains without a name are typically so small that many people not even notice them when passing in the street. There are lots of very impressive, famous and large fountains around here, with rich decorations, often sculptural qualities, and famous names. most famous ones include These would be nice to show up very early (maybe z15 or 16), the qualifier could be tourism=attraction Fontana di Trevi used to show up at z16, currently it's z18 which seems too late: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/41.90076/12.48326 Typically if the fountain has no name it is also less important. Visualizing (mapping) single nozzles makes sense in different settings like bigger water areas, like here: cheers |
|
So your hometown is probably different from mine - there are not such big fountains, and those "small" are not to be seen passing the streets, because they are important landmarks in parks, like:
They are very typical here in Warsaw. What would you do with them? How would you change/extend my proposition for tagging and rendering to work in a sane way for both cases? |
|
2015-05-31 22:54 GMT+02:00 kocio-pl [email protected]:
First of all, I would question if those fountains that contain sculptural
|
|
I haven't followed the entire discussion (it would be a day job) - is there any chance this is eventually going to lead to a pull request? |
|
@math1985 We're not ready for PR, but the conclusions are very close IMO, because we talk about the sane compromise between rendering big and small fountains. |
|
@dieterdreist I have checked the sculpture and you were right - the name and the artist are known, so I updated the tagging here. It is interesting that it's not so typical for a small fountain - the water goes through nozzles at the bottom of the sculpture, not only form the sculpture itself. It ensures me we need some additional tagging for the nozzles, the lights and any other micro scale devices that can be used with the fountain. I think it's an important conclusion, because this would allow us be micromapping-friendly from the start. That would be nice side effect of such a late decision to render the fountains. Tagging and rendering guideI guess we could render the points with a name (if available) + the icon, and probably the area with just a name. That way we shouldn't break too much and give the mappers more flexibility with what do they consider to be a fountain, since it showed they can come in wide variety of forms and sizes. If the nozzles inside the big fountains are tagged as fountains, they could be retagged probably, but we need the new tag then for nozzle - maybe just water=nozzle (amenity=nozzle was clearly rejected), but the other tags for elements used there (such as lights) could be crafted too. Nozzles should be always rendered as blue dots, since they can be quite small. Rendering detailsI will try to make a mockup to test the idea. I would start with full icons from z>=17, just like many smaller POIs. The name for the points should be in water-like color and with typical size and style. Embassy and bus stop could be the right templates here. Name for the areas should be the same color and text style, but the size should be dependent on the way_area. I don't know from what zoom level should they be visible and what size/way_area function should we use, because I had no time to look at big fountains yet. Nozzle zoom level have to be higher than 17 - for small fountains z19 would be better than z18. We don't have this tag yet, but it's better to know it beforehand. What zoom levels or other general hints do you suggest? We will tweak it after all, so it does not have to be right from the start. |
|
@kocio-pl, any progress in the mockup? Since nozzle is part of a fountain let's use the namespace: fountain:nozzle=yes for the nozzle. |
|
Not yet, I have some other things, but I still remember and plan to do it. This tagging sounds reasonable - I still think it should be first proposed on Tagging list, but I expect no problems with accepting it. |
|
sent from a phone
+1 |
|
Sorry for such a long delay, but here is the first batch of local mockups. Right now I'm looking for the right color, because water-text is too pale and transportation-text is too strong (and I don't want the fountains to resemble transportation facilities). Any suggestions?
|
|
This is not closed, only the icon was added, no area rendering. Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/48.77501/9.17879&layers=N / http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/100055576 |
|
Note that not every fountain has a water area: |
|
sent from a phone
for me it renders fine: |
By design - the fountain can be an area but not filled with water. One can add the basin easily (as it is done now) and it doesn't break anything, while removing water would be hard (new tags for fountain should be coined and database reload would be needed). If we know the fountain area, we should have it tagged, no matter if there's a water inside or not.
I guess @HolgerJeromin was not complaining but trying to explain why the fountain area is not filled with water. There can be some problems on z17, where the icon has small water circle included (as a context for a dot), however it should be discussed in more details on #1934, as this is a specific subcase of rendering. |
You are right. Thanks for explaining. |
|
So how should be tag the water area? If water area equals the fountain area according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element the best would be a property of amenity=fountain. If the water area is smaller it should be still marked as a part of the fountain. Water area equals fountain area Water area smaller than fountain area (the comment was updated with more detailed taggin) |
|
Fountain can have many parts: nozzle (one or more) seems to be essential, water basin is very common, some artwork is also a common part, but there can be some lights (even in the basin) also - I'm not aware of any other common part. @matkoniecz said he has an idea related to mapping big/complex fountains and I hope he will reveal it some day :) ... I think now it's time to define it as a whole, not just a basin, because it will be harder to make the parts tagging coherent later. Do you have an idea how should we tag all the fountain parts? |
|
sent from a phone
I'd use the same tags we use otherwise without the fountain. E.g. in Rome there is a famous fountain with an ancient egyptian obelisk on top, I don't see the need to say it's a fountain part, you can see this because it's inside the fountain perimeter. (btw, current rendering puts a blue circle atop the obelisk icon, it's on Piazza Navona) cheers |
|
For osm-carto that could be enough (given we agree how to tag individual nozzles), but it's better if the tagging scheme is more flexible - for example for making 3D models too or selectively hiding some elements (like fountain lights, but not the street lights). BTW: More detailed tagging could also work in case of Piazza Navona and the likes - we could decide to treat artworks being a part of the fountain in a special way. |
|
2015-11-03 10:07 GMT+01:00 kocio-pl [email protected]:
yes, some features like fountain lights (or maybe more general: underwater If we want to go on discussing this, we should do it in the B Ark (sorry, |
|
I have already started this topic 2 months ago, but nobody replied: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-September/026349.html |
Hi,
I'd like to know what is the current state of affairs with the fountain rendering?
We have reasonable proposition to fix this issue (#47) - there is the code and even the icon (https://github.com/Rovastar/openstreetmap-carto/blob/e5320dbd98981fdeb1944771d54d6984b4bf4b73/symbols/fountain.png). I know the original reporter mixed too many things in one basket, but this one should be easy to pick up and merge - almost no-brainer.
So what are technical - or maybe other - obstacles keeping this issue unresolved and what should be done to fix it? I want to help if it's needed and possible.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: