Pipeline should be visible #640
Comments
|
Above ground pipelines may be landmarks and therefore you could argue that they should be rendered. The underground pipelines shouldn't be rendered as they will confuse the map view. For a map of pipeline in OSM see http://www.itoworld.com/map/220 |
|
If the pipe is tagged overground/overhead/outdoor, why can't it be rendered at, lets say, Zoom level 17 and higher?
It's for some pretty big pipes. |
|
I am sure that it is a good idea to display pipelines, except underground ones. Note that there are pipeline bridges. |
|
Of course I ment overground pipelines. Is there any chance to make them visible? |
|
What's the tagging scheme to distinguish between underground/overground? In the Sahara, pipelines are also important landmarks: http://www.theleader.info/media/images/articles/thumbnails/11784_320x0.jpg |
|
gravitystorm
modified the milestones:
New features,
3.x - Needs upgrade to mapnik or openstreetmap-carto.style
|
So probably the best solution is to show only ones with location=overground |
|
You are right. What should we do to achieve this goal? |
|
The best way would be to get involved with writing the code (the style-sheets on this github project). In github terminology that means forking the code to your personal space, updating the code, and supplying a "Pull Request" back to this github project. That's all explained on github's help (or just google it) as it's a github process not an OpenStreetMap process. You may want to watch Andy's workshop at the recent SotM-EU conference. If you cannot find someone willing to help with this, you will simply have to wait until one of the other members on this github project pick it up. There's quite a back-log so patience will be required. |
|
Do we have location as a tag in the db, if not then then it will be trickier too. I do think we could render these I see the benefit. |
Don't believe so, which puts this to 3.0+ |
|
Maybe dark gray line, wider than barriers? It is a special kind of barrier, so it should be OK to have it similar. With bridge casings for elevated ones (with bridge=*). |
Sounds good for me. I'm also thinking about segmented line, resembling pipe joinings (rough ASCII sketch):
|
|
Maybe With bridge casings for elevated ones (with bridge=*).
I'm also thinking about segmented line, resembling pipe joinings (rough ASCII sketch):
|――||――||――||――||――|
Where I am there are a lot of "pipe bridges" - a buried 1m pipe pops out of the ground, crosses a river, and goes back underground.
Any render that would help people not confuse them with a pedestrian crossable bridge would be wonderful - as they are often near or go over other ways. I know that the routing engines would ignore them, but visually would look like a bridge a person could cross (but are gated off and very dangerous).
Javbw
|
|
It looks like Mapnik currently offers only simple line endings - and of course CartoCSS too: https://github.com/mapnik/mapnik/wiki/LineSymbolizer#linesymbolizer |
|
I have finally found a way to do it:
The trick was to use image ( Now we can get back to design. What color should be used? What segment length (currently 13 px total, with endings x 1 px), endings size (5x1 px) and the space between segments (1+1=2 px)? |
|
Surely it's too strong at the moment. It also is too sililar to aerialway=* rendering, eg. |
|
The spaces are too small? What's your proposition? All the lines are similar and it's just the convention. I believe the context will make it clear - aerialways consist of short straight lines and have stations on both ends, pipelines tend to be long and curved. |
|
I like it. If you can get it to work, i'll carry the same ideas to carry over to #1999 , because right now i'm drawing a blank there. Colour wise, i'd go with that generic grey you use for things like bunkers, etc |
|
@kocio-pl Could you please publish the code with LinePatternSymbolizer here? |
|
Better footing on this massive water pipeline / aqueduct / bridge tagged as above but not rendered. |
Where can I find the PR with your changes? I'd like to try it in local. |
|
https://github.com/jeisenbe/openstreetmap-carto/tree/pipeline - this is the branch that I was using to test possible renderings for man_made=pipeline, but I did not submit a PR yet. |
|
@daniel-callejas-sevilla were you interested in submitting an PR to add this feature? Do you need any help? |
|
@jeisenbe, would the PR be at a mergable point close to where your test branch has it or would it still need any major modification? |
|
It's usable for testing. It would be good to check the rendering in
several different places and look for any potential problems with the
data or rendering.
|
|
A place in Poland with the pipelines running next to each other. It looks fine from z19-z17, but starts getting iffy after that. z19 |
|
Easier for me to write than to do, it may be an option to make them disappear or even show like solid lines < z17 |
|
I think making not display at anything more zoomed out then z17 is probably the answer. If we make them solid lines it would be hard to tell them from other things. They don't look good sooner then z17 by themselves anyway. Single pipeline z16 (check out the last two parts on the left side. Doesn't look good due to the pipeline doing a little zigzag)
Doesn't look to bad at z15 or z14 if they are straight. |
|
We show even minor power lines, streams, private driveways and private
footways at z16 or sooner, so it would be strange to limit pipelines
to z17.
|
|
Note these are often thousands of kilometers long structures. |
|
these are often thousands of kilometers long structures
Most of the very long pipelines are underground, though I understand
that Alaska and other areas with tundra are exceptions, and there are
some water aqueduct pipelines that are 10s of kilometers long which I
tested.
|
Yeah, I agree. |
|
I can thankfully see this underground canal If you think of it from the point of view of oil companies, they would rather not have the public know about their pipelines. But from the point of view of environmentalists, it is important to know about pipelines. I recall opening up great (paper) atlases of the world in the library, and seeing the whole Russian infrastructure, Trans-Siberian pipeline, railroad, highway, all on the same big map. That's what made them great. |
|
If people are concerned about the Amazon forests, they would like to see where pipelines have got to, not only roads, at the same zoom levels. High voltage power lines too. One look at OSM and people will say "Now there's a map that puts the (vegan) meat on the table!" (Of course with a crowding factor added to keep them from getting too dense.) |
|
Goo*** etc. commercial, and especially government maps, have all kinds of pressures to keep various multinational corporations' stuff off the map. This is where OSM can outshine them. |
|
Also if you think about it, this is where we can get the most bang for
the buck: well at least for high voltage lines, as they are straight,
one needs only to add their towers from imagery, and connect them with
straight lines. Sure the electric company and governments won't
cooperate by even telling you what the name of the power line is (due to
national security for high voltage infrastructure). But all one needs is
one trip to one tower to read the tower label sign to get the name of
the line. Voila. Line complete. I suppose pipelines are similar.
|
|
@jeisenbe, any suggestions since its your design and code? |
|
You could try adjusting the different colors for different
`substance=` values and test if you think they work intuitively or
not. You can also try adjusting the width at the different zoom levels
if you notice any problems.
I would recommend testing in several different real-world locations
where there are a variety of other features mapped nearby
For the initial zoom level, I tried z12 and z14, I believe, and it's
currently set to z14. You could try changing this, but right now it's
the same as `power=line` and major barriers like `barrier=hedge` and
`barrier=city_wall`, which makes sense - an overground pipeline is a
major barrier (can't walk or drive under it), and an overhead pipeline
is a significant landmark like a power line.
But if you have other ideas it would be reasonable to try a different z level.
Treat it like you are the maintainer reviewing the PR, and submit what
you would be willing to approve, if you were making the final
decision.
|
|
Just my two cents: it may not be perfect, but it looked decent enough to me at z19 to be implemented.
Javbw
… On Jan 14, 2020, at 5:29 PM, Joseph E ***@***.***> wrote:
I would recommend testing in several different real-world locations
where there are a variety of other features mapped nearby
|
|
@Adamant36 - were you considering opening a PR for this? |
|
uuummm, yeah. But it doesn't look good at certain zoom levels and everyone thinks they should still be rendered at those levels. So, that needs to be worked out first. |
|
Remind me, what was the problem with the rendering tests at z16?
|
|
I don't know. I just thought it could have looked better. Although I don't have an exact, specific problem with it though. We really could just do the PR as is. Since it looks good otherwise and I don't think the problem on z16 (if there even is one) is worth holding it up. |
|
@jeisenbe, you want me to do the PR for it? |
|
Yes. Opening a PR will help us get ideas from other contributors.
If you don’t think it is ready yet, then you can add “[WIP]” for now, and
ask for help with the parts that you think need improving.
|
It's better to do it as a draft PR if you don't think its ready. |
Why are pipelines not rendered?
They are good landmarks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: