Render highway=pedestrian same as highway=living_street (at z13 and z14)

[jeisenbe]

As mentioned in #3849 (comment) ("Render highway=pedestrian and highway=living_street same as highway=residential on z13") there is not a strong difference between the meaning of highway=pedestrian and highway=living_street - both are pedestrian-priority areas with limits on motor vehicle access and speed, but both almost always allow motor vehicle access at least at certain times of the day.

The current highway=pedestrian rendering is quite dark, with the same lightness as landuse=residential, =retail, =commercial and =industrial, so there is low contrast with the surrounding polygon fill in most places.

On the other hand, there are problems with the current highway=living_street fill, for example it is identical to the current parking area fill, which is a problem for areas. At z13 the color is hard to see against residential areas, according to #3849 (comment)

By combining the two features into one rendering, we would have one less different road color, which will make future changes and maintenance of the style easier. And we could adjust the color to compensate for the 3 problems mentioned above.

Rendering highway=pedestrian like highway=living_street would also mean showing these features at z13. Right now it is strange that cycleways are shown but not large pedestrian streets at z13.

Current rendering of Luxembourg city, z13 (no pedestrian roads, but living streets shown in southeast part of city centre):

z14 Luxembourg current

[polarbearing]

both almost always allow motor vehicle access at least at certain times of the day

I disagree. For hw=pedestrian that might be true if there is delivery access in a shopping zone, but there are other examples where they are indeed pedestrian only.

[ClarkstonCorrect]

I also thought that living street rendering doesn't stand out enough from landuse=residential, even closer than z13.
So maybe change both? Make it lighter potentially

[jeisenbe]

#4555 (comment) - former maintainer @matkoniecz recommended to close this issue "as not worth doing" or perhaps "not improving things" - please explain?

[jeisenbe]

this is not reasonable, a pedestrian highway is closed for regular (motor)vehicles, a living street is more or less a residential street with a particularly low speed limit

• @dieterdreist in Render paved/unpaved #110 (comment)

If you are looking at a map, you would not expect to use a highway=living_street as a motor vehicle through route, right? But both would be good routes for pedestrians. Are they not practically similar to a general map user?

[Adamant36]

(I'm transferring this comment over from the other discussion)

change the colour of living streets to something else (maybe a very light cyan, I don't think this will ever be confused with water given the context of these ways)

From what I've seen in America roads tagged as highway=living_street are just wrongly tagged residential roads. So if anything rendering for living streets should be removed because the tag clearly isn't used consistently or how it's supposed to be. If living streets even exist outside of a few very specific locations in the first place. I say that becaus I have yet to see the tag used on a street purely due to a sign saying it's a living street. Instead it always seems to come down to the opinion of an arm chair mapper based on satellite images.

[dieterdreist]

If you are looking at a map, you would not expect to use a highway=living_street as a motor vehicle through route, right? But both would be good routes for pedestrians. Are they not practically similar to a general map user?

As a pedestrian they might be somewhat of similar utility (few nuisance from traffic) whilst still providing a different experience (in a pedestrian road you can (and everybody does) walk everywhere, there are no sidewalks and no parked cars. In a living street there are usually lots of parked cars and generally there will be some car traffic and people will tend to walk on the border, they are residential roads, in residential areas (pedestrian roads will be found in commercial/retail/central/scenic areas). While not being very convenient for longer distances, it may sometimes still be the best option to take a shortcut in a living street with your car. In my opinion, the current pedestrian symbology and the living street symbology should be inverted (living street lighter, pedestrian darker)

Also, from looking at the map I came to the impression that pedestrians are not in the focus group, in my city it only shows those main roads that are relevant to automobilists, with quite exaggerated width

the road eats the river

pedestrian centre is just holes and fragments, the only purpose I see for such a map is navigating with a car, because pedestrian viability is missing and urban structure is also missing (due to removal of buildings in these zoom levels).

[pnorman]

but both almost always allow motor vehicle access at least at certain times of the day.

This is not my experience with highway=pedestrian

I wouldn't be opposed to unifying the fill of the two because both existing fills have significant problems and I don't think it's possible to find two fills that will work well. At the same time, I don't think unifying the rendering is ideal.

From what I've seen in America roads tagged as highway=living_street are just wrongly tagged residential roads

Living streets are, for a variety of reasons, a concept that has never been popular in the US.

[matkoniecz]

I came to the impression that pedestrians are not in the focus group, in my city it

As person who designed this: it was intended to cover all modes of transport without blatant focus on any (I am rather on extreme side of opinion of role of a cars - and it is not one of praise).

Note that your screens are upscaled lower zoom levels, for view of that size of such area a different zoom level was tweaked to overall sort-of-work.

Yes, such upscaled maps have massive issues. Note that images which are not upscaled, cover the same area are without many of them. And fixing issues present on upscaled maps would introduce problems to maps in their normal size.

but both almost always allow motor vehicle access at least at certain times of the day.

This is not my experience with highway=pedestrian

+1

From what I've seen in America roads tagged as highway=living_street are just wrongly tagged residential roads

From what I know every single highway=living_street in USA is mistagged. highway=living_street requires pedestrians having priority over cars and being OK to walk on any part of the street.

[matkoniecz]

former maintainer @matkoniecz recommended to close this issue "as not worth doing" or perhaps "not improving things" - please explain?

I would put it in "not improving things"

highway=pedestrian and highway=living_street substantially differ, and this provides useful feedback to mappers.

I would unify highway=trunk with highway=primary and highway=tertiary with highway=secondary before doing this, differences there are smaller and more debatable.

[dieterdreist]

Am Do., 9. Juni 2022 um 18:24 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < ***@***.***>:

As person who designed this: it was intended to cover all modes of transport without blatant focus on any (I am rather on extreme side of opinion of role of a cars - and it is not one of praise).

I imagine that it was not on purpose to focus mainly on motorized traffic, but it is the result of hiding pedestrian streets (often this includes the main streets in European city centers) at these zoom levels as well es removing other information like the urban textures (buildings). Emphasizing this road type also leads to even more of covering rivers (river transport) and railways, so "all modes of transport" are covered only if they are not too close to a road, otherwise car wins. It is ok to extremely exaggerate features like streets, the line graphs is one of our main assets, but if it is done only with roads accessible to motor traffic you may hardly deny that the outcome is quite car centred and other modes of transport take a step in the background.

Note that your screens are upscaled lower zoom levels, for view of that size of such area a different zoom level was tweaked to overall sort-of-work.

these are cropped screenshots from the phone, this is why they may seem "upscaled" (as you know osm is not providing different tile resolutions and to keep the text readable the get upscaled).

[matkoniecz]

these are cropped screenshots from the phone

and here are images without rescaling:

I consider them to work much better than what was presented

and railways

I would need to check code to be sure, but rails/roads are not priviliged and ordered by layer order. Maybe except very low levels.

it is done only with roads accessible to motor traffic

I think that railways at least are really prominent compared to other maps, I would do the same with rivers but it would require preprocessing

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

On 9 Jun 2022, at 22:49, Mateusz Konieczny ***@***.***> wrote: I consider them to work much better than what was presented

different zoomlevel, your lower zoom is the same as my higher zoom (13), your higher zoom (14) is at the point where it starts working, it’s these lower zoomlevels (12/13) that suffer from the unfortunate decisions to omit pedestrian highways and buildings

[jeisenbe]

It looks like there is not much support for unifying the rendering of highway=pedestrian and highway=living_street at low zoom levels, but perhaps we can consider only at z13 and z14? I’ve changed the title of this issue.

[dieterdreist]

It looks like there is not much support for unifying the rendering of highway=pedestrian and highway=living_street at low zoom levels, but perhaps we can consider only at z13 and z14? I’ve changed the title of this issue.

if you are going to conflate living street with another road class, my preference would be to render it the same as residential, this is what is similar

[bgo-eiu]

I am an American user of the pedestrian and living street tags and I only use pedestrian streets for streets which prohibit all vehicle traffic (this is how it is officially defined locally as well), and living street for streets which have some kind of physical barrier preventing general car traffic but may have residents park their cars there (for example, if there is a gate for cars but a public entrance for pedestrians, or some other sign that pedestrians are supposed to be able to walk in the street without mixing with general traffic). I think it's pointless to go back and forth about what the "correct" way to use the tags are when the understanding of the roads / concepts is different in different places, I am just saying I agree that living street is more similar to residential street just because it is usually possible for a vehicle to get on to them. There is no sign that will stop American drivers from driving on a street if it's wide enough for them, signs and road rules are just seen as suggestions here so that influences how people add features to the map.

[Adamant36]

From what I know every single highway=living_street in USA is mistagged.

I was looking at the tags usage in South America and it doesn't seem much better there either. So I'd be interested to know where the tag is used properly outside of Europe. If the answer is that the tag is only used correctly in Europe then IMO it shouldn't be rendered for the same reasons that tags like amenity=parcel_locker currently aren't, Or at least render it the same as residential roads. Otherwise, it just comes off like the style only caters to a small minority of mainly Western European users.