Improve marsh/wetland/mud rendering

[matthijsmelissen]

• Render marsh and wetland from z10 (resolves marsh/wetland rendered only for zl>=13 #899)
• Render labels on marsh, wetland and mud (resolves Wetland name not rendered #935)

[matkoniecz]

Render marsh and wetland from z10

Is it working properly for small areas? I expected that symbols/marsh.png is unsuitable for rendering in this cases.

[imagico]

natural=marsh is deprecated - see:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Wetland_areas&oldid=583733

[matkoniecz]

natural=marsh is deprecated

You may want to comment in existing ticket about this or create a new ticket for this (but with 11 797 instances it is likely this proposed change will be rejected).

This PR is about improving currently rendered feature.

[matthijsmelissen]

Is it working properly for small areas? I expected that symbols/marsh.png is unsuitable for rendering in this cases.

There are sufficient huge wetland areas, see for example http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/53.4123/5.6895.

[matkoniecz]

I know, but some wetland areas are tiny at z13.

[imagico]

You may want to comment in existing ticket about this or create a new ticket for this (but with 11 797 instances it is likely this proposed change will be rejected).

I am just pointing this out since it is not widely known (which is also proven by the fact that >9000 of the uses have been added by import after it has been deprecated).

And i concur that the wetland pattern is not well suited for rendering at low zooms - and neither is the beach pattern by the way - which is now also used from z=10 on - like on http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=10/53.3764/5.5495.

[matthijsmelissen]

And i concur that the wetland pattern is not well suited for rendering at low zooms

Isn't this not so much an zoom level problem as an area size problem? There are tiny wetlands on high zoom as well as huge wetlands on low zoom. What solution do you suggest?

[imagico]

Using a more fine grained pattern would help. Try this one:

would also solve #936 and does not imply vegetation as the current one does.

[matkoniecz]

There are tiny wetlands on high zoom as well as huge wetlands on low zoom.

Good point, it may be better to fix it as a separate issue. I also thought about something like imagico presented.

[dieterdreist]

is there any usecase for the malformed natural=mud which isn't better
represented with natural=wetland?

[imagico]

I would consider natural=mud as a synonym for natural=wetland + wetland=mud, there is no mud that is not also wetland since mud is wet by definition. Tidal mud flats should probably better be tagged natural=wetland + wetland=tidalflat.

And of course there are also self contradicting cases like

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41065883

[dieterdreist]

2014-10-18 16:38 GMT+02:00 imagico [email protected]:

natural=wetland + wetland=mud, there is no mud that is not also wetland
since mud is wet by definition.

"what kind of wetland is it? A mud" --- really??

I think this sound very bogus. Currently most used values for (i.e.
subtypes of) wetland are:

bog
marsh
swamp
tidalflat
reedbed
wet_meadow
saltmarsh
mangrove
string_bog
saltern

accounting for more than 99,9% of all subtypes (for roughly 216.000
occurences).
Luckily there are only 23 occurences of "mud" because this really doesn't
fit at all into the list. "mud" is not a type of wetland, it is a (generic)
description of a material (wet soil, clay and silt).

[imagico]

I didn't say this is a particularly good tagging. On the other hand the commonly used values for wetland contain nothing suited for stretches of mud that are not tidal.

Current use of natural=mud can to a large part be divided into three categories:

• tidal mud flats which should be tagged natural=wetland + wetland=tidalflat
• wetlands with no, sparse or patchy vegetation like here
• intermittent water areas/dry lakes like here

Most of this is essentially tagging for the renderer due to the fact that wetlands are rendered in a uniform style implying vegetation and intermittency of water areas is not rendered.

[dieterdreist]

2014-10-21 13:17 GMT+02:00 imagico [email protected]:

I didn't say this is a particularly good tagging.

happy we agree on this.

On the other hand the commonly used values for wetland contain nothing
suited for stretches of mud that are not tidal.

what type of wetland is it? If you can tell what you want to tag, we can
find a value for it ;-)
Maybe it is a marsh? A wet_meadow? A bog or a swamp? Mud can occur in
various circumstances as it is just a generic term for "water + ground /
soil / ...", wetland=mud really doesn't add anything that isn't already
contained in natural=wetland.

[matthijsmelissen]

Thanks @imagico, that icon is an improvement.

Assigned to @gravitystorm for review.