military=danger_area looks like building on z10 and is agressive pink at z11

[matkoniecz]

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/234810192#map=10/54.4057/19.4012

Something between z10 and z11 style would be better - neither eyesore pink nor nearly invisible grey.

Also, pink is used for retail, commercial, supermarkets and tourism attraction.

Current z11 style:

Current z10 style:

Currently used style for [landuse=military; military=barracks] that IMHO would work as military=danger_area and for its current purpose is too strong:

[dieterdreist]

2014-07-01 8:23 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny notifications@github.com:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/234810192#map=10/54.4057/19.4012

Something between z10 and z11 style would be better - neither eyesore pink
nor nearly invisible grey.

I'm in favor of something like a bold outline and some hatching, similar to
how we do it for other military areas. Full fills don't integrate well with
the landcover layer.

[matkoniecz]

https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3905 on trac also suggests that it should be opaque

[matthijsmelissen]

Do you think we need to keep both military=danger_area and landuse=military? We could consider using the current landuse=military rendering (red stripes) for both. Most military training grounds are likely danger areas in one way or another, and military areas probably shouldn't be entered even if they are not danger areas.

[matkoniecz]

Do you think we need to keep both military=danger_area and landuse=military? We could consider using the current landuse=military rendering (red stripes) for both.

Seems to be a good idea - I will run test on it. But in that case it may be possible to do not handle this tag.

Wiki has info that adding also landuse=military is mandatory what makes sense, but it is done in about half of military=danger_area. But even 50% of object is less than 500 object worldwide - see http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/gJi

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

Il giorno 10 giu 2016, alle ore 00:26, Mateusz Konieczny notifications@github.com ha scritto:

Do you think we need to keep both military=danger_area and landuse=military? We could consider using the current landuse=military rendering (red stripes) for both.

Seems to be a good idea - I will run test on it. But in that case it may be possible to do not handle this tag.

what about military danger areas on water? A danger area for military reasons doesn't necessarily imply that the area is currently used for military purposes, or does it? Couldn't this also be used for legacy dangers?

[matkoniecz]

@dieterdreist lets continue at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:landuse%3Dmilitary#Add_explicit_note_that_it_covers_also_legacy_dangers

[matkoniecz]

From checking it seems that many of military=danger_area without landuse=military is used for tagging for renderer for dangers unrelated to military (see for obvious example at http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40111293#map=19/38.99369/-77.08746).

[mboeringa]

Well, you justly removed that one... I don't think this type of severe mis-usage should be any guide to decisions regarding style development.

[matkoniecz]

It was merely the most obvious one, so absurd that I changed it without verification on the ground.

But from my check most of military=danger_area that has no military=landuse seems to be unrelated to military - and therefore mistagged and not worth rendering.

[kocio-pl]

Danger symbol is now moved to SVG and it should be easier to test different background color ideas by changing this line (possibly also adding opacity):

openstreetmap-carto/landcover.mss

Line 45 in 79bc74d

@danger_background: #fcd8db;

Color of the symbol itself can be changed here.

[kocio-pl]

Effectively closed by #3057 - see #3057 (comment).