Messages

Would be possible to add railway=miniature to v4 LpMaps?

Attached shows it missing for LoMap v4 and visible on OAM.

Another request... I'm finding it difficult to view the regional cycle networks when zoomed out, ie, get a feel for where they are and which link up with which.

This is because rcn they appear from zoom level 12, but I want to zoom out further.

OAM have rcn routes appear from 10, and this seems to work much better, see attached comparison image. Second image shows best view possible currently with LoMap by zooming out at level 12.

[Does lm_highway inherit all tags from the associated highway tag?]

Found another issue, I think... it looks like that tag lm_highway does not include all the tags that highway has? 

I'm using lm_highway with routes and designation, since routes are not tied to highways.

At the moment, I can't tell when a route is attached to a highway that has restrictions tagged through the designation tag. 

E.g. attached 1st image shows a route that follows a section of track and footway that is designation=unclassified_highway, highlighted red,  for these cases OS maps display just green dots instead of green dashes, see first image.

The second image shows what I want to display, using highway but this is not linked to route, so this affects footpaths with routes and no designation, see right side of second image...

BTW, the highlight colours used for designations here match the colours used for uk signage on PROW:
  - Yellow = footpath
  - Blue = Bridleway
  - Purple - Restricted byway
  - Red - Other routes / BOAT

Does lm_highway inherit all tags from the associated highway tag?

If not,  can designation tag be added to lm_highway?

Fyi, here is the theme code I'm trying to use in these cases:

<rule e="way" k="route" v="foot|hiking"
  <rule e="way" k="network" v="iwn|nwn|rwn|lwn|uwn">
      <rule e="way" k="lm_highway" v="footway|path|pedestrian|track|bridleway|cycleway|service" >
        <rule e="way" k="designation" v="~"> <!-- designation ways drawn elsewhere -->
            <!-- Draw footpaths -->

Just spotted that cutting tag is not supported, is this possible to include?

Attached shows latest lomap v4 vs oam, getting alot closer to OS map now with the usage of the designation tag.  Note that green lane is missing the cutting in lomap.

I do also miss the increased number of contours of oam maps still... and, of course, the inclusion if OS crag data 😉.

@voldapet

Point 13
Would it be possible to include service tag values for highways? Seems only service values for railways are included.

This would allow lesser important service roads to be drawn thinner and less distracting, attached is a comparison of lomap vs oam. On lomap the car parks are very prominent as the parking aisles are drawn as service roads.

@voldapet

I just realised that updated maps and tagmapping files are available in GitHub, thank you, very much appreciated.

I've started work on theming the designation tags, and realised we missed out one of the important values:

designation=unclassified_highway

Not a very self explanatory value! But this equates to routes that would be indicated on OS maps as "Other route with public access", i.e. green dots.

Please can you add this value to the Lomap v4 maps too?

Regarding region 1, I don't want to use transparency for water, and don't for OAM maps.  Surely I should be able to draw above the water a tunnel using tunnel=yes, but this doesn't seem to work for LoMap v4 maps, see attached.

Also the cycle circles are incorrectl being drawn on water by matching tunnel="~|no" biut there are no other tags with value "no" involved in my theme for the cycle circles..  it's almost like the tunnel=yes is missing...

Checking other tunnels, all if them render as though missing tunnel=yes.

You can see some of examples of latest theme

yes I have been following that thread - excellent work; but just to confirm, my 2021-02-16 OS Map theme is currently the latest right?

Yes that was the latest version I published, wow over two years ago... been busy with family and work so not had much time spare.  But I have recently been improving the OS theme especially with some of the OAM map requests Christian implemented for me, and then along comes v4 LoMap maps, so exciting!

Karl - what is the latest version of your wonderful theme & where can I download it? Page #1 still has 25/2/2021.

Hi Andrew, I finished the v4 OS Map theme back in Feb, and was going to release it with the old v3 theme not updated... but then along came v4 LoMap maps...

I've been working to making the v4 theme work for all v4/v5 OAM maps and the v4 LoMap maps, getting close now, just waiting for the latest LoMap beta maps with designation tags included so we can finally show UK public rights of ways just like OS maps do...

Given that v3 maps are being consigned to history, I'm thinking of not trying to update the v3 theme anymore - the v3 maps are missing tags that have been added to v4/v5 maps.

You can see some of examples of latest theme in the thread about the v4 LoMap maps:
https://forum.locusmap.eu/index.php?topic=8309.new#new

@voldapet

Point 14
Request: would it be possible add natural=bay to LoMaps?

Attached is an example from OSM and comparison of OAM vs LoMap.

Point 15
This is probably something I should request against the app rather than here, but I'm wondering if it would be possible to have a grid like OS maps have, perhaps 1km lines and 10km lines that can be customised by the theme to appear at suitable zoom levels and stroke styles etc..

@voldapet

@karlchick
BTW: are there any standard symbols or styles that indicate designation in the UK maps?

See attached Ordnance Survey legends. PROW are red or green according to the map scale; there are different markings for different types of access rights.

@voldapet
Sorry, I missed that question. Yes OS maps do have symbology for different access rights, colours, dashes and dots are used to represent different Public Rights Of Way (PROW) as in 3rd and 4th attachments.

The designation tags in OSM should allow me to represent all these in the theme, I think.

Note that newer OS maps now also include orange dashed pathways for Permissibe PROW. I have tried to emulate this in OAM using combinations of available tags and it largely works, see first attached (left OS, right OAM). Currently path, PROW path, PROW bridleway, PROW permissive path. It should be a lot easier with the designation tag, but sometimes the access is set to permissive in other situations, hence OAM's foot=ft ft_permissive is useful...

I have also added tidal paths (blue) as a non-OS option, see second attached. Note I use thinner dashed paths for non-PROW paths (as do OS maps). This example shows a low tide alternative path that people sometimes use when walking the South West Coastal Path (SWCP). It has tidal paths/steps and a permissive set of stairs to return  to the hiking SWCP route.

With the designation tag I should be able to represent all the OS symbols... I'm looking forward to an updated LoMap to play with.

Edit:updated images for latest fixes.

Hmm.. I think the LoMap approach to cycle/mtb routes is very different compared to OAM.

OAM seems to remap the cycle/mtb/hiking network values through to the highways they are related and uses separated tags for each type of route (network=cycle, mtnetwork=mtb and hknetwork=hiking).

OAM additionally resolves issues like route=mtb and network=ncn, by remapping these through to mtbnetwork=nmn. An example of this can be seen in the attached first pair of images showing LoMap/OAM with the latest v5 Voluntary theme, see how the mtb route is displayed in LoMap with blue/purple blobs but in OAM is only purple blobs.

I resolved this for now in LoMap maps by ignoring the network tag and using just the route=mtb/bicycle values to differentiate them. Separate rules are used for OAM and ignored by LoMap by checking for route="~", since OAM doesn't used route tags for network routes. See second pair of images comparing LoMap/OAM with my latest OS prototype theme.

LoMap having separated routes results in multiple renders for each route, advantage is ref labels for both routes, disadvantage is multiple highlight/emphasis drawn.
 
Another feature/issue... since LoMap is using separated route ways from the highways, I can't determine if a route is off-road. With OAM I am introducing hollow blobs when a route is off-road, see attached third pair of images.

Finally, I am missing OAM's feature to autogenerate route refs when a route has no ref tag, it does this by raking the first letter if each word in the routes name and any numbers, see examples attached and how OAM names the mtb route PWCR.

POSTSCRIPT: It seems to be connected with routes which have neither osmc nor sac_scale. Changing line 1246 to test for sac_scale=hiking|~ makes some routes show.

I have also noticed this, the best I could render is attached (LoMap v3, LoMap v4, OAM). Seems some routes have ref tags and some do not, even when provided in OSM, e.g. NCN routes 1 in this example.

Note that OAM is only showing a single ref tag and seems to pick the ICN EV12 instead over the NCN 1, so highest order/class of route... I really hope LoMap will show a concatenation of all route refs when on the same way, e.g. EV12/1 in this case...

@voldapet

Point 9
The 1:250,000 OS maps do indeed include contours,  see attached screenshot from memory map and here is a link to the OS 250k legend

OS 250k Legend

You cannot view this attachment.

Interestingly 1:100k maps in the UK have pretty much fallen out of favour, they used to popular in the 50s to 70s as 1/2" scale maps. They used to also include contours, and were very useful for cycle touring. There is an interesting article about these maps:

The great lost map scale

Point 8
Something else about surface tags, in OAM they are also provided for the above surface mappings for several other types of ways, like natural=beach/desert/wetland/sand. Making it possible to render pebble beaches and gravel banks differently.