Suggestion for man_made=storage_tank

[JoshGore]

The below is my suggestion for rendering the feature man_made=storage_tank in main OSM layer:

[matkoniecz]

It would clash with parks, playgrounds etc using very close colours.

[matthijsmelissen]

The rendering is also not very intuitive to me. Storage tanks might contain petrol, or manor. This looks more light a water storage tank to me.

[JoshGore]

Didn't realise there was already a suggested rendering:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/storage_tank

I was specifically thinking of content=water, however perhaps the above would be better as more generic so therefore suitable for all tanks

[vincentdephily]

Note that taginfo sees many other way to tag a tank; we should probably include the first few.

I'm not a fan of the rendering either : many tanks are not round, and we have so many round icons that nobody will guess that this particular one means a storage tank. How about something inspired from http://www.thenounproject.com/term/wash/9411/ ? Not a perfect fit, but more immediately recognizable.

[dieterdreist]

2014-06-03 12:59 GMT+02:00 vincentdephily notifications@github.com:

Note that taginfo sees many other way to tag a tank
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=tank#values; we should
probably include the first few.

there are even more, think about man_made=water_tower
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made=water_tower
and gasometers:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=man_made%3Dgasometer

Please also note that there is no tag-definition (only a placeholder) and a
poorly designed proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/storage_tank (poorly
designed because a tank never contains solid stuff, there are other words
for bulk-storage containers of solids, and also because it restricts the
usage to "cylindrical" containers, while there are also other shapes in
use).

[hlaw]

It would seem that most of the man_made structures (not to mention storage tanks for different materials) may not be prominent enough to be given a specific rendering different from the existing building types. Both google & yahoo maps give tanks the same rendering as common buildings -

http://yahoo.jp/n-kVO1
https://maps.google.co.jp/maps?ll=40.602549,140.484686&spn=0.001426,0.002047&t=m&z=19

[matkoniecz]

I see no good reason for encouraging usage of man_made=storage_tank over building=storage_tank. This old proposal was also never properly discussed.

[JoshGore]

Possibly render as a building but a crosshatch pattern (or similar) to show that it is a "container" - designed to contain a substance rather than a building designed for human use?
Agree use of building=* is more appropriate than man_made=* for several objects including tanks (certainly a typical cylindrical tank, some other tank designs perhaps not)

[Rovastar]

Just render this as buildings/structures.
I think this is too difficult to do sensibly as there are many variables.
really do we want to have a dozen different colours for different conditions for a general purpose map?

[dieterdreist]

2014-06-04 9:10 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny notifications@github.com:

I see no good reason for encouraging usage of man_made=* over building=*,
especially with this one. This old proposal was never properly discussed.

I agree that the rendering could be the same as for a building, still the
man_made seems a tag that fits well and does convey maybe some technical
meaning like "this is still used", while a building is about the structure
itself and not what something is used for.

[matthijsmelissen]

There seems no desire for this, so I will close the issue.

[simonpoole]

Sorry for adding to this and essentially reopening. The current numbers for storage_tank use are

145 900 man_made storage_tank
vs
12 762 building storage_tank

(this is likely due to presets). IMHO rendering the former would make sense (but not necessarily anything differnt than for building=storage_tank).

[jojo4u]

This is man_made instead of building. Man_made is also used for silo, water_tower, gasometer and reservoir_covered. The feature page is now in good shape and usage is now 153 467 : 13 560.

[ThomasA]

Simply not rendering man_made=storage_tank (and man_made=silo as well, for example) seems like almost the worst solution of all. At least the tanks and silos I am thinking of are often quite prominent features on the ground. They often stand out much clearer from the landscape than surrounding buildings and not rendering them at all when they are actually tagged seems like a mistake.
If no consensus can be reached on the actual appearance, how about simply rendering them with the same signature as building=industrial? At least they show up on the map then.

[ThomasA]

To elaborate a bit: These are examples of the silos and storage tanks that I think it is a problem not to render:

[matthijsmelissen]

Shouldn't they be tagged as building=yes in addition? At least the first one seems to be a building.

We can fix it on our side, but I don't think we should expect all other renderings to follow suit.

[kocio-pl]

The question is not only how to render such polygons (143 941), but also how to render nodes (56 091)?

[ThomasA]

Combining it with building=yes would seem an easy fix, but the documentation says:

A storage tank is not a building, so do not include a building=yes tag.

The documentation for man_made=silo does not mention such a restriction, but only specifically mentions combining it with building:material. I guess that could be used in my silo example (top image) to tag that they are made of concrete.
I still think the very visible oil storage tanks in my bottom image ought to be rendered on maps when they are such easily recognisable features. See also the note about this in the documentation for man_made=silo:

Silos are landmarks which lend themselves to navigating. Most silos are easy to discern from other structures by the layperson.

[matkoniecz]

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:man_made%3Dstorage_tank#building.3Dyes_.3F for discussion on wiki about tagging.

I think that this discussion should be resolved before closing this issue or changing rendering.

[matkoniecz]

145 900 man_made storage_tank
vs
12 762 building storage_tank

Note that according to https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made=storage_tank#combinations about half of man_made=storage_tank is tagged also as building=* (building=yes, building=industrial, building=storage_tank).

[SomeoneElseOSM]

Whether a storage tank is a building or not is probably a question for the tagging list (and likely won't get resolved there), but what's the objection to rendering a man_made=storage_tank that someone has decided to add without a building tag?

[ThomasA]

Reading the thread of this issue, I get the impression that there was no consensus on what it should actually look like?

[matkoniecz]

what's the objection to rendering a man_made=storage_tank that someone has decided to add without a building tag

It is a strong voice in a discussion how this feature should be tagged (to be fair, not rendering it without a building tag is a also a voice in discussion, though a bit less significant). This style has significant influence and encourages editors and other data consumers to follow.

It also means that style is again made a bit more complex.

[meased]

The ideas in #2532 may help solve the rendering issue if everyone is acceptable to a storage_tank being a "minor building". Doesn't help with the tagging issue however.

[HolgerJeromin]

Google image search for storage tanks are all/most ground based.

[Tomasz-W]

What about this shape?:

[Tomasz-W]

Gist link: https://gist.github.com/Tomasz-W/4ebcb87699e6442d696f9c06ce16c31f

[kocio-pl]

@Tomasz-W I'm a bit worried if this shape is not too solid, especially because silos/tanks tend to be clustered in real life. Maybe making them a bit slimmer would work for example? Or maybe filling them with some lighter shade?

[Adamant36]

I was thinking that myself. I think @polarbearing has a similar opinion. So id be willing to do tests etc on a better icon if need be.

[Tomasz-W]

2. 
3. 

[polarbearing]

I think @polarbearing has a similar opinion

Oh, mind-reading. Shoud I wear a tin hat? :-)
But indeed, No 3 is more pleasant. Could we try the fat one with 50% transparent fill representing the content?

[Tomasz-W]

(50% fill)

https://gist.github.com/Tomasz-W/4ebcb87699e6442d696f9c06ce16c31f

[meased]

I like 3.

[sommerluk]

Looks a little bit like a stein (glass for beer) for me.

New icons should be monochrome. I know we have still some very few non-monochrome icons currently in openstreetmap-carto, but ideally we would get rid of them also.

[polarbearing]

The 50% one is not bad, thanks for trying, but indeed could be taken for a drink. Thus No 3 is it.

[IgorEliezer]

Since the "drink" comments, may I suggest a silo icon?

(quickly made on Paint.NET)

[Adamant36]

@polarbearing, only if you want to. I don't know about in Europe, but where I live depending on who your friends are tin foil hats can be a legitimate fashion accessory. Either way, don't worry. I'm not reading your mind or listening to the grumbling about icon choices through your microwave ;)

As far as the icons, maybe there could be a different one for each. It seems like silos are tall, thin, and sometimes raised off the ground. Where as storage tanks tend to be short, more rounded, and often on the ground. Although, I'm no expert on it, but number three does seem a little thin for a storage tank, not bad for a silo though.

[kocio-pl]

There's a space with water tanks, probably rater small, so I think v3 is worth using as a replacement:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/24.18194/120.86605

We don't know anything more than what tank or silo contains (liquid, gas or solid materials), so I would change it for both types.

[kocio-pl]

@IgorEliezer Thanks for your sketch, but we need to test icons on 14 px matrix to know how would they really look like.

[Tomasz-W]

Just for the note: there is replacement of symbols/man_made/storage_tank.svg file needed with 'v3' file from this Gist link: https://gist.github.com/Tomasz-W/4ebcb87699e6442d696f9c06ce16c31f

[jidanni]

I assume the new tank symbols will still cover up addresses. #3435

[jidanni]

Please remove the side hose from the storage tank icon:

I would recommend not using the current
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/symbols/man_made/storage_tank.svg
for water storage tanks.

It 100% resembles a gas pump
https://www.google.com/search?q=gas+pump&tbm=isch

Only gas pumps have a tube (hose) attached to the side.

So either establish an independent icon for water tanks, or remove the hose... thanks!

[matkoniecz]

If you think that something should be changed - please open a new issue.

Comments in old issues will be almost certainly missed.

[Adamant36]

Please remove the side hose from the storage tank icon

I'm pretty sure its not suppose to be a hose. I think it's the ladder that is on the side of most storage tanks. Which water storage tanks also have. That's why it connects to the tank in the semi-middle but continues going up it.

[jidanni]

Oh, that is for immense storage tanks. I say there are many more storage tanks on farms and roofs of buildings, holding water 3, 5, 10, 20, 40 metric tons, without ladders. As ladders are brought to the site when needed and not left rusting attached to each tank. None of these tanks have ladders: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/24.18840/120.87404 So please use a more general failure-proof symbol. Thanks.

[jidanni]

Also one notes in the (iD) editor reasonable tank symbols are used. The user only discovers months later that he has actually filled the hills with "gas pumps". Furthermore, those tanks with ladders are always much fatter than taller. Nope, I'm sorry, the current tall tank icon with a "hose" at its side is certainly a gasoline pump.

[pnorman]

If you think that something should be changed - please open a new issue.

Comments in old issues will be almost certainly missed.