LoMaps + MapsForge V4

[john_percy]

@voldapet
Could you please include the bridge=viaduct tag which particularly affects rendering railways. AFAIK it is functionally equivalent to bridge=yes.


Sent from my moto g(6) plus using Tapatalk

[michaelbechtold]

When will V4 be generally available, i.e. in app LoMaps downloads deliver V4 maps rather than the old V3?

[voldapet]

@michaelbechtold There are already Czech R. and Slovakia LoMaps available as V4 in the Locus store (version 2023.03.23). The rest will be released probably during the next week.

@john_percy
bridge=viaduct - added

[john_percy]

@voldapet
I think the is something wrong with the rendering of tunnels. The screenshot below  is of the Dartford crossing of the Thames East of London. Map is England, internal theme Road
Region 1 is road underwater: nothing shown
Region 2 is road underground: normal road shown plus underground markings
Region 3 is road above ground for comparison
It seems to me:
1. Layer=-1 puts the tunnel under everything, so solid colours like the river block visibility of the road markings. Every area needs to be semi transparent for this to work.
2. Tunnel=~|no seems to also select tunnel=yes, so underground roads are selected as well as above ground roads and rendered.


The second screenshot shows the same area and theme with an OAM map.


Edit: Does the common value bug persist for "no"? OAM removes all tag value=no before processing the map. Changing the test for non-tunnels to simply tunnel=~ deals with my point 2 above but leaves the tunnel hidden by the river in the underwater section. See the effect of a modified internal theme below.

[voldapet]

@john_percy Thank you for the detailed testing.
Region 1 - you're right. Transparency is used for other areas and should be used also for water areas. I'll fix it

Region 2 - what an interesting issue I found out that the problem is caused by the tag foot="no". It causes the rule

Code Select Expand

<rule e="way" k="tunnel" v="~|no|false"> to be considered as "TRUE" and the way is rendered also as non-tunnel
You're right that changing rule to tunnel=~ solves it but I'll ask menion to fix it also in mapsforge

@michaelbechtold - LoMaps V4 are ready in Locus Store for all countries

[karlchick]

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.

[john_percy]

Like @karlchick I don't want to render all areas as semi transparent. I believe OAM removes layer=-1 from tunnels in preprocessing and allows tunnels to be rendered by the theme with skillful use of transparency and position in the theme. I prefer this and I think it gives a better result overall.
The reason @karlchick can't get cycle route blobs to behave as wanted in tunnels (or on bridges) is because Lomaps treats all hiking, cycling and MTB routes as separate ways which don't inherit the tag values of the highways they follow. So the road has a tunnel tag but the cycle route does not.
Edit: @karlchick You'll also find that your cycle blobs are missing from the bridge (adjacent to the tunnel) in the Lomaps version. They have been drawn on layer 0, underneath the bridge layer, as the cycle route doesn't inherit the layer tag either.

Sent from my moto g(6) plus using Tapatalk

[john_percy]

@voldapet
Any idea why the wood doesn't show at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4018087#map=15/52.2051/-1.1154 ?
Screenshots are of v3 & v4 Lomaps with internal hike & bike theme.

Sent from my moto g(6) plus using Tapatalk

[voldapet]

@karlchick @john_percy
The problem with hidden tunnels (section 1) has to be here from the beginning of LoMaps (I guess). There is no tag transformation for "layer < 0" and all elements in layer < 0 may be hidden under other areas from layer = 0 and higher. I think that OAM really "move" some elements from layer < 0 to layer = 0 but I don't know the exact logic. I think we considered some kind of tag transformation a few years ago, but I think we rejected it and I don't remember the reason. So would you prefer to move the tunnel to layer=0? Can it have some side effects?

The reason @karlchick can't get cycle route blobs to behave as wanted in tunnels (or on bridges) is because Lomaps treats all hiking, cycling and MTB routes as separate ways which don't inherit the tag values of the highways they follow. So the road has a tunnel tag but the cycle route does not.

Exactly, but it shouldn't be a problem to inherit it. (I already thought about it when I saw the cycle route on the example above).

@natural=wood
The area isn't rendered because it isn't properly closed (The area is partially filled when I removed the "closed=yes" attribute)
. I also checked the OSM data and it seems to be OK. So there has to be some issue during map generation. 

[john_percy]

1. The only side effect of moving tunnels to layer 0 I'm aware of is that tunnel=yes and tunnel=no|~ have to be tested for explicitly in the theme, and dealt with accordingly.
2. Letting routes inherit bridge, tunnel and layers would be helpful, thanks.
3. The wood renders ok for me with my Voluntary themes with the OAM map but not the LoMap v4.

[voldapet]

1. agree..
2. Do you know if OAM map substitute "layer" with some special tag?
3. there has to be really something wrong in the map. I'll check it later

[john_percy]

2. I don't believe so. The themes just check for tunnel or underground (for pipelines etc). I think bridges etc retain their layer tag.


Sent from my moto g(6) plus using Tapatalk

[john_percy]

@voldapet
I'm looking at osmc waymarking but I can't see any markings on some routes I am looking at, where OAM maps show osmc markings. For example, one location is N 51.61224°, E 007.57491° (from Locus). I'm using LoMap Nordrhein-Westfalen from the beta folder and the theme you shared above.

Is it something about these particular routes?
Is it a fault in this particular map?
It's a black_rectangle that seems not to display. Or is it because of the text that should display on the rectangle?

[john_percy]

@voldapet
I tried "Validate" on Locus theme from GitHub:

Sent from my moto g(6) plus using Tapatalk

[karlchick]

@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?