Interesting idea, coincidentally I was preparing similar visualizations for a talk at FOSSGIS. I did not prepare a low zoom one, so it is good to have an additional (linkable) resource. :)

Somebody who writes that someones opinion is irrelevant is not worth listening to.

JOSM is a great editor, which is a pleasure to use. Thanks!

I’m quite sure the intention was to thank the parting board members for their service not to omit some names.

Regarding your second image I think that it is unlikely that a road that is not on a bridge joins with a road that is on a bridge. The other junction also does not make much sense to me. I would suspect rather a data/tagging error than a rendering error.

It would help a lot if you could post a link to the locations you have referenced in the images.

The outline is a compromise between the dark style without aerial imagery and the noisy background of aerial imagery. On the dark style without aerial imagery a semi-transparent halo very quickly starts looking dirty-greyish. Since you already have experience with tweaking icons for JOSM I would be happy if you or someone could help with finding the best-looking alternative.

I guess you mean if I have plans to make this the default style of JOSM? No, currently not. However, if somebody wanted to push it in this direction this would be ok for me and I would support it. I’m sure you have noticed that this style does not cover all icons currently supported by JOSM, so there would still be some work to do.

What kind of artefact appears on z12?

With “artefact” I meant that on z11 the thinness of the outline and the high contrast between fill colour and casing colour let the road appear with a rather jagged outline, which does not look too good (at least in your renderings here, maybe its different on the map). The same is true for z12, but the problem is less amplified. Then it gets better.

This could be solved by starting with a less dark casing colour on z11-12 and then gradually moving towards the current colour on higher zooms or reducing contrast between casing colour and fill colour altogether for all zoom levels. But I rather like the stronger casings on higher zooms so better to keep them and tweak the lower zooms a bit.

Looks really great! Just one point that I spotted: While the stronger casing of secondary roads looks great on higher zooms I think it is too strong at z11 and z12. At z12 this causes some “artefacts” like in your rendering of Market Weighton. Maybe you could start out subtler and then move to a stronger casing on higher zooms.

Congrats for your efforts in reducing clutter! I like it already. I have to second the comment that the road colours are much too saturated. If having less saturated ones means de-saturating landuse colours then we should do so.

I also like your colour scheme (apart from saturation), it is great to have similar hues for the road hierachy. I also think you should not let yourself being distracted by calls for adopting road styles similar to a country’s default style (e.g. UK, Germany). Let’s find something independent that works. If that leads to more diversity in styles (e.g. more country specific ones) that is not undesirable IMO.

Regarding diary reporting: If enough people (registered users?) report a diary entry it could be automatically being unpublished. The threshold should be high enough so that abuse is prohibited, but this would take pressure of moderators to have to act quickly.

Regarding changeset reporting: I don’t know if the idea is that reported changesets should be processed by the DWG, but otherwise people could volunteer for specific regions and those changesets within this regions could be automatically assigned to them. Of course, this is only necessary if a certain number of reports would be reached. But maybe I’m wrong to expect that there won’t be too many changesets being reported.

Great thing, I would like to have this button for spam diary entries already! :)

@Richard In technology related research ethics is still often met with a “How do you spell that?” attitude. So I doubt if there even exists an ethics comitee. UK might be different, though. Of course something like this should be discouraged and I also think that the DWG should be involved in that.

You have linked the MapQuest Open layer. If you want to verify if you have mapped correctly, looking at the Standard layer is sufficient. Other layers may update themselves less frequently. The missing parts at MapQuest Open might be a result of tiles being not yet updated. Sometimes it also helps to force reload the site in your browser (Shift + Ctrl + R) to avoid having old tiles in your browser cache.

Osmic is now also available as icon font. See https://github.com/nebulon42/osmic/tree/master/font.

@RastaGropoulos: I have not considered that yet, but I used icon fonts like Font Awesome myself on a regular basis so I know how useful they are. I have set up a GitHub issue to track that: https://github.com/nebulon42/osmic/issues/23. Feel free to add any info/insights you might have.

Thanks!

stephan75: I have added the link to the page.

This makes me speechless, because it is nothing else than a public pillory. I thought we left the middle ages long ago?! I don’t think you will gain support for your cause if presenting it like this.

Good user interface, I like it! I also noticed that sometimes no data is displayed, I’m not sure if it’s just loading longer or if it is something else.

I’m missing more comprehensive information what tags are currently displayed. There is a reference to the wiki for fire hydrants, but details for fire stations are missing. E.g. when clicking on fire stations an empty bubble opens. Does this mean that names are currently not displayed or are some tags missing? (see osm.org/node/940283410 for an example)

I’m not sure if the Austrian brigade symbol (for fire stations) is internationally recognized. Maybe something more universal should be used?

Da sind doch glatt alle Tipps bereits gegeben worden. :)

Bis auf den hier: JOSM hat auch ein super Plugin zum Häuser einzeichnen. osm.wiki/JOSM/Plugins/BuildingsTools

Admittedly, I do not know much about all the circumstances of this license infringement. But it is an infringement, right? So let’s call it like that. It seems odd to me with what great care some argument here.

There is a model for handling this- it’s slow and it’s expensive (due to administrative costs), but it is effective.

This is a really nice euphemism for sueing somebody, I like it, and I’m sure that the OSMF does neither have the resources nor the incentive to do that.

There are several companies (who shall remain nameless for now) which have failed to attribute OSM in customer maps.

Why shall they remain nameless? Naming them would be a start. Or are we afraid that they sue the OSMF for disseminating damaging allegations? This should be no problem if there are proofs for infringements.

So my question is: Why not letting people know who does not play by the rules?

Wegen “API begrenzt Bereich”: Es gibt ein JOSM-Plugin mirrored_download, mit dem man große Datenmengen von Read-only-APIs herunterladen kann. Ist sehr praktisch, aber kann gut sein dass sehr große Bereiche damit auch nicht funktionieren.