Israel Hiking map

Just to be sure, a isn’t a “drop_line” a symbol of a water drop with a hollow interior and a contour of specified color? I fail to see how this is related to the symbols on the ground.

What would be the meaning of the relation in this case? The “merged marking” is a physical property of the way, while every relation can have its own “default” marking regardless, and the renderer should use the marking from the way if it’s available.

I think that systematically removing data should be done by a consensus. I produce for myslef maps with the Maperitive offline renderer, and I would like to have the routes simply colored, without shields. Till now, I did this by matching “color=" property. Now it’s broken. Not a big deal, but still… Who knows, maybe someone else was using this as well.
Regardless, it’s better IMHO to have "color=
”, at least until we have some stable convention and we see that rendering is good.

Sorry, I meant
black:white:blue_bar:orange_lower

talkat.

Based on Colin’s inputs above, I guess we need to think a little…

Here’s the thing.
hikebikemap.de supports the standard only partially, with some limitations.
This is the best that we have now.

So…
Should we “tag to the renderer”, or tag according to the standard, hoping that in the future it would be supported?

“tagging to the renderer” is considered a no-no, but I really don’t know, and am hoping for some collective wisdom.

I’ve gone over all the ways that have either “color” or “colour” tag (there should really be only one…), and there were around a hundred (about half of each)
Now that there are only relations, the number is lower, so one mapper can go over all of them in less than a day (I guess I did it before, I can do it again…)

talkat.

I say tag to the renderer, writing a conversion script in the future shouldn’t be too difficult. But, I would also like to keep “colour=*”, and this will not depend on the renderer (after all, the majority of the trails are commonly referred to just by their color.)

Let’s try to look at the problem from another point of view. There are several types of ITC trails:

  1. INT
  2. Regional trails (Shvil Ezori)
  3. Long trails: Jesus, Golan, Emek Ha’Ma’ayanot
  4. Regular single-colored
  5. Urban (I haven’t actually seen these, but the ITC maps say they exist)

How would we like to see all of these on a map? IMHO, apart from the symbol (shield) specific to each route, these categories should be differentiated by a specific tag (then the renderer can assign to them different line styles , and maybe min-zoom setting).

One option: network=nwn/rwn/lwn. To keep the ITC designation, we can have “operator=itc”, like they did in Slovakia.

Another option: keep network=itc, and add itc:type=national/regional/long/standard/urban or something of this kind.

Ok, fair enough. I’ll try to go over all the relations today. Will post about my progress here.

As for the colour tag, we could use the standard of roads having several refs (or bus_stop with several lines etc.) and have something like colour=blue;red for ways like this bridge.

I vote for the 2nd option:
network=itc, itc:type=national/regional/long/standard/urban

talkat.

As of this morning, there were 55 relations with the osmc:symbol tag.
I changed them all to have the way color be the same as the foreground color.

I also added colour=* tag to ways where applicable.
That means that we now have a standard colour tag on ways (and not as before where about half of the ways had the colour tag, and the other half had the color tag…)

Hopefully, tomorrow’s Lovia’s map will have all the changes.
It’s already updates to last night, and some of the routes show there nicely. :slight_smile:
e.g. in the Carmel.

hikebikemap.de isn’t yet updated, hopefully it will update during the day, but all the changes should be there by tomorrow mid day.
Edit: hikebikemap.de is now updated. Here is an example. :slight_smile:

talkat.

This is exciting some exciting stuff!
So are these our conventions now?
Talkat - Can you give provide a way ID that I can take an example and start marking some roads?

I guess…
Until dimka (or anyone else…) comes up with a better suggestion.

Sure.
This is an example of a relation.
Notice it has the following tags:
network = itc
osmc:symbol = blue:white:blue_bar
ref = 10362
route = hiking
type = route

Meaning: The route is blue (1st parameter in osmc:symbol) and the shield is a blue bar on a white background.

And this is one of the ways which belong to the above relation.
Notice it has the colour tag which matches the color of the route.

talkat.

It looks cool!

We also decided to add the itc:type=national/regional/long/standard/urban tag to the relation.

On second thought, since most of them are itc:type=standard, we can tag only the ones which are different, at first stage. Later we would have automatic scripts to check these conventions.

dimka

Not all are hiking routes (some are mtb, horse, etc.)
and not all are by the ITC.
For example, some are by KKL, or even the Nes Ziona Municipality.

So maybe have network=itc/kkl/… network:type=national/regional/long/standard/urban ?

talkat.

I proposed “national/regional/long/standard/urban” in order to correspond to ITC definitions at the back of their maps, probably KKL has a different scheme (I guess we’ll find out soon :wink: So it would be then network=kkl and kkl:type=…/…/…

For some routes I guess we don’t have a clear network=* designation yet (such as Ness-Ziona scenic route).

dimka

Agree.

Maybe in this case we could default to network=lwn? Which in this particular case is actually network=lcn.

talkat.

In theory, it can be as quick as being only 5 minutes behind, but the server is quite loaded at the moment and so takes a while. I hope it will return to a better speed at some point.

Cheers
Colin

I have summarized our conventions in the wiki, please feel free to comment/update.

Note that cycling routes are not covered yet.

dimka

There are problems with the rendering of existing osmc:symbol 's. So the INT, the Golan and the Jesus trail are rendered incorrectly. From the details here I understand that “orange” is supported only for backgrounds, and “green_lower” isn’t supported as well.

I think we’ve no other choice but to ask Nop for the correct symbols (i.e. “stripe_left” etc.).

Update: just sent him a message.

dimka

Please note -
name (the tag) in relation is never rendered (as far as I see at this point).
Please add name (the tag) in the way itself if you wish for it to appear on the maps.
A good example would be Shvil Israel which probably “deserve” to be shown not only on hiking maps.

Another thing -
Despite being adopted elsewere I find the use of network=itc (and its abroad counterparts) non-standard and render challenging for international map operators.

What do you suggest? That everything be tagged network=nwn?

AFAIK, we can send an email to Lovnia’s and they will render our trails according to our request. After all, there’s no real “challenge” here as all the renderers are open-source and can be adopted to our needs. As long as we’re consistent in our tagging there shouldn’t be a problem.

It is not always possible (for example when the route uses named streets or highways). And of course when a way belongs to more than one route. To avoid a mess, I think we shouldn’t add “name” to every way from the relation.

Also, the names can be shown on a legend (as in Lovnia’s map), and Shvil Israel can be rendered with a different line style than the other routes, utilizing the itc:type tag.

What I’m trying to say is that your or mine idea of a “good-looking map” might not be the same as somebody else’s, and so as long as the tagging is good anyone can create a map he likes most.

dimka

I think national trails should be nwn (regardless of the nation/country size), locale trails (the vast majority of itc trails) should be lwn.
This is inline with ITCs colouring which is unique for INT and locally selcted to evoid colour conflicts for locale trails.
Not sure but I suspect there are also KKL trails (Adulam? Einav? k20? usualy marked with low wooden signposts) which I think should be rwn.

In the naming hirrarchy I concider trails to be lower then streets.
Since the relation name is ignored one has to specifically add name to selected sections of a route.
Also note that relations are not a way to overcome naming conflicts as one way may be related to few relations (the usual case in INT).

Yes they are, exactly because of that reason. That’s why you assign names to relations rather than ways.

Well, currently no one is using (=rendering) this great feature so I’ll give the smarters to come the option by filling name in relation and will add names in the way were it is needed to get a proper service now.
Nothing for the majority of this forum reader to worry about since I’m mostly interested in off-road trails.