What's the point in recording the names of interesting sites (often in the middle of nowhere) if no-one will ever see what they are? We see a chunky large symbol on the map but no matter how far we zoom in, we never get to see what it is?! Wouldn't it make more sense to show the site name, even if it's only at the most detailed zoom levels, as with address details? Is there any sensible way to achieve this? Lots of people browse maps to see what's worth wandering over to take a look at, and unmarked symbols are a wasted opportunity to show them where something is worth exploring. Thanks

UPDATE : I've just noticed (2014-Mar-18) this has changed, the features are now named at the highest levels of zoom. Excellent!

asked 29 Jan '14, 16:16

OffTheChart's gravatar image

OffTheChart
447713
accept rate: 0%

edited 13 Feb '15, 13:17

aseerel4c26's gravatar image

aseerel4c26 ♦
32.3k16241553

4

for archeological sites and other historic items I recommend http://geschichtskarten.openstreetmap.de/historische_objekte/translate/en/index-en.html

(29 Jan '14, 17:35) escada
1

Thanks escada, that's a great link - the map looks much better like that!

(29 Jan '14, 17:58) OffTheChart
1

Updated, now that the situation has been nicely resolved. Thanks!

(18 Mar '14, 16:23) OffTheChart

It is a frequent misconception that something not shown on the map style used for www.openstreetmap.org is not worth recording. In fact, that map style is only one of hundreds of maps being made from OpenStreetMap, and every map maker can decide for themselves what they want to show and what not.

Type "render own map" in the search box above to learn about ways how you can make your own map from OpenStreetMap that shows what you are interested in.

There's also work going into supporting "clickable POIs" on the map so that the user may click on something and see details. Check out http://overpass.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/ for a working prototype.

Go to https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues if you want to submit a change request for the map style, but please understand that what gets rendered and what not is subject to the cartographer's decision - we simply cannot show everything that is recorded on the map.

permanent link

answered 29 Jan '14, 16:49

Frederik%20Ramm's gravatar image

Frederik Ramm ♦
74.2k866691149
accept rate: 24%

edited 29 Jan '14, 18:05

aseerel4c26's gravatar image

aseerel4c26 ♦
32.3k16241553

Thanks for replying, but I stand by my comments that there is probably ample room (and justifiable interest) to show names when zoomed in. I firmly believe it's worth doing for the average person motivated enough to consult a map. The clickable POI idea would be good, too. Thanks

(29 Jan '14, 18:03) OffTheChart
1

Absolutely - but everyone thinks that about their "favourite feature missing from the main map", as well.

(29 Jan '14, 19:11) SomeoneElse ♦
1

But if the main map is mainly for mappers to check their edits and get some fast visual feedback from editing, then a cluttered map would not really be an issue. At least less an issue compared to the point of view of a general purpose map.

(29 Jan '14, 19:38) aseerel4c26 ♦

The renderer makes different choices, between zoom levels. Just like large scale visual maps mainly show highways and at higher zoom levels everything else, included for instance archeological sites. So yes map it, the renderer should deal with it.

permanent link

answered 29 Jan '14, 19:56

Hendrikklaas's gravatar image

Hendrikklaas
8.7k184216358
accept rate: 5%

Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:

×455
×402
×5

question asked: 29 Jan '14, 16:16

question was seen: 2,142 times

last updated: 13 Feb '15, 13:17

powered by OSQA