Messages

Andrew,

Strange, the previous version v20210216 and the new version v20231013 seem to behave the same regarding surface highlighting. Attached is a comparison of v20210216, v2023101, and v2023101 modded to highlight all roads with asphalt.

Currently only tracks, raceway and cycleways highlight asphalt. Looking at the modded version I can see why I might have avoided other highways which are usually sealed anyway. With the dash unsealed roads option enabled it would be obvious when main roads are not sealed.

I agree with your ~rant about the highlights being too intrusive, they are drawn over the highways (like a real highlighter pen). I changed the way the hike/cycle routes are highlighted in this release and the new PROW highlights are drawn below the highway... I should do this for these highlights too.

Thanks Andrew, I made a mistake with the release notes, fixed it now.

I'll take a look at the surface highlights and see what's going on.

I noticed Tapio's signature earlier, will do something similar too I think.

Only the higher ZL city areas are visually not my cup of tea,

Yes, in cities like London there are a lot of blue icons that clutter the map.  Many are car parks and pubs, which would usually always be shown on an OS map in more rural settings, as they represent significant landmarks. But in a city they are so common that they are less useful.

I know that OS maps don't show these in cities,  probably for that specific reason. See comparison attached.

I don't want to remove them from the z15/z16 levels as they are useful in rural areas... I guess I could raise the priority of the more significant icons in cities, e.g. museums...

...or add an option for symbols earlier...

Hi Everyone,

Finally the wait is over. After 2.75 years of tweaking in my spare time, I have finally completed the update to the OS Map theme.

The links to the theme are in the first post, which has also been updated with the latest release notes, comparison screenshots and links to the latest PDF legends (also bundled in the theme itself).

The theme now works as a ZIP theme, so no need to unzip anymore.

I am a little worried about the size of the theme files now, they have doubled in size... so please let me know if this causes performance issues... I am considering splitting the theme into 6 separate files: 1:25k, 1:50, Dynamic and again for night theme... but would prefer not to...

If you are wondering why the release date on the ZIP is 20231013, this was the original planned release date and I was about to upload when LocusMap switched from v3 to v4 LoMaps and I realised I needed to update the theme to cope with the new map and its tags etc...

The theme has a lot of improvements regarding footpaths, including with the change to v4 LoMap maps a massive improvement, especially if you are a fan of the original Ordnance Survey Maps, as LoMaps now support tags to distinguish between the different types of public rights of way, which in the UK, are not always as simple as access yes|no:



Some of the map features can be disabled using the options for non-OS content or accessible/designated paths, as they are not in the original Ordnance Survey maps, but are (I think) very useful additions that enhance the maps.

In the UK these different types of public rights of way (PROW) which define restrictions on who/what can use them:



There is a new option in the theme to highlight PROW and this uses the same colour scheme as the UK waymakers shown above.

I realise that in other countries you do not have the same waymarkers, restrictions or even possible tagging yet in your country's OSM data. But please remember that this theme is aimed as emulating the Ordnance Survey maps and so is largely aimed at users of the OS maps, which obviously will be located in the UK.

I am planning to upload the OS map theme into the LocusMap store, but I would like to identify any teething issues first as I have made a massive number of changes/improvements. So please provide feedback if you find anything wrong. Thanks in advance, Karl.

Hi Everyone,

Finally the wait is over. After 2.75 years to I have finally completed the update to the OS Map theme.

Please check the main OS Map theme sticky post for more details.

For me, it would be great if the rendering engines could be fixed to cope correctly with nested rules that use common values like "no" and "yes".  Its almost like the nested rules are flattened into a set of ORs... it seems to get worse with "~|no" or "~|yes"...

No, I agree, it's not an essential of a map.

The biggest issue for me is the miss-processing bu the map rendering engine for "no" and "yes" values that are common to many different keys.

Another improvement could be if the rendering engine could process multiple categories, e.g. cat="os-25k|os-dyn", it would greatly reduce the size of theme file.

Viewpoints are displayed similar to OS maps, but use a 360 symbol. On OS maps they sometimes use a 180 viewpoint oriented in the direction of the view, see attached.

It's probably just a "nice to have feature", perhaps useful in some instances when exploring new areas via the map, but you can usually figure out which orientation the view is likely to be based on contours...

I've just noticed that the test map you provided also now exposes natural=saddle, although without (it seems) any direction information. I note that natural=saddle is not listed in the latest tag-mapping file I can find: https://github.com/asamm/lomaps-mapsforge/blob/main/various/tag-mapping-xml/tag-mapping-tourist.xml

Is this a new addition that will in LoMap v4 maps? If so, can we also have direction tag?

I also wonder if adding direction tag, if it could be provided for viewpoints too...

Hmm.. so it sound like I should be able to see tidal=yes for lm_highway=footway (for a route=foot|hiking) when the original highway=footway had tidal=yes.

But I'm not seeing this, I can see the rendering for when highway has tidal=yes, but not for lm_highway with tidal=yes (they have different line thickness in my theme at the moment).

Would it be possible to include the tidal tag with the lm_highway tag?

It should be possible. But this is the same situation we discussed in another thread. Please consider whether this is really vital because of the number of (15) maximum tags.

Highway already has the tidal tag, and very useful it is too. I kind of assumed that lm_highway is a straight copy of highway, and hence including tidal tag would be fixing an ommission.

For routes related to highways, with lm_highway missing the tidal tag, I currently can't indicate tidal sections of routes. In OAM maps this isn't an issue since highways carry both the tidal tag and routes (albeit one of each type).

Are there other non highways tags being included in lm_highway?

Would it be possible to include the tidal tag with the lm_highway tag?

Yes, it's as John said, our themes ignored  areas that are not closed. I'm changing my theme since I don't fill or outline nature_reserve areas, just use symbol with name.

It's not an issue with the map.

- leisure=nature_reserve - I'm testing the latest LoMaps and seems to be OK (would you please check it again)

Still an issue in the latest LoMap, see attached. Link to osm data: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97554897#map=16/50.6817/-3.4543

But this might be a theme issue, mine and John's theme use very similar rules, but the internal theme is naming the nature reserve and outlining it... hmm...

Thanks for test map, yes it does fix my issue and improves the bridge for routes. Too (as John pointed out), attached, and now I understand what you mean about adding layer tag... but I do feel the cost of using one of the 15 tags is a little high, and possibly blocks other/future more worthy tags...

I can understand your concern about modifying osm data... although it looks like OAM are doing this already in this case.