User talk:Waldyrious

Cycleway area tag question

Hi! I thought my change was simply fixing an obvious omission because shared cycleways are tagged in two schemes as per Tag:highway=cycleway#Examples. Just so I understand what you meant, what if the shared unsegregated cycleway way itself is tagged highway=cycleway - the current wording implies that the area would still be area:highway=path. Or am I misunderstanding something? Unfortunately, I see this exact case is missing from the examples table. HellMap (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, if a linear element is tagged highway=X, then it makes sense for the corresponding area representation to be tagged area:highway=X. However, that was not what your edit suggested, since the situation was described only as «non-segregated "foot & bicycle" path areas.» I would agree with reinstating the change you made if it had that caveat, e.g.

* Don't use an {{Tag|area:highway|footway}} tag for non-segregated "foot & bicycle" path areas. Use {{Tag|area:highway|path}} for them (or {{Tag|area:highway|cycleway}} if the line is tagged {{Tag|highway|cycleway}}).

Would that be acceptable to you? --Waldyrious (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why this presupposes that the way is tagged as highway=path and not highway=cycleway? In fact, there are 532K instances of cycleway and 500K of path with segregated=no. Which is pretty much the same and which is why I put both variants instead of highlighting one or the other. I guess I'm confused what my edit suggested instead?

Anyway, yes (in the grand scheme of things that need fixing on the wiki) your amendment would be fine by me too -- as long as the examples aren't exclusive to one scheme. HellMap (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a fair question. I didn't know the numbers were that close, and am indeed surprised that so many people pick cycleway as the primary tag for a shared space where neither bicycle nor foot takes precedence, IIUC (if anything, I would expect pedestrians to have priority, all else being equal). I wonder if that results from the legal designations in specific countries, or the default presets in different editors... but I digress — this is not the place to hash out that topic. I'm glad my suggested adjustment works for you — feel free to introduce the amended edit, either with my proposed wording or an equivalent one (or I can do it myself if you prefer). --Waldyrious (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, the two schemes are by and large based on presets in iD (cycleway) vs JOSM (path) (which is why I called it "JOSM variant") but also regional specifics and local consensus, like the legal designation you mention and also how path vs footway is used and interpreted locally. I know it causes no shortage of issues for data consumers and is highly inconsistent even within the same locale. Wiki also has many instances where it only mentions one or the other.

Anyway, I added amended wording. Feel free to adjust, but I think I explicitly stated both cases clearly now. HellMap (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfect! (I mean, as close to perfection as possible given the two-schemes situation we find ourselves in.) I hope we can eventually converge into a single mapping scheme. Cheers, Waldyrious (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Street-side parking picture

Please don't change File:Parking-street-side.png just to change the colours. We've tweaked it during the development of the proposal based on feedback from others. It has worked quite well for over four years. --JeroenHoek (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies. The discussion behind the edits done to the image was not indicated in the upload summary of the versions you uploaded (nor in the file description page, or the associated talk page), so I hope you'll understand why I was not aware that there had been discussion resulting in that particular evolution of the design. In fact, if you could add links to those discussions to the file page or its talk page, it would be most helpful.

By the way, out of curiosity — do you consider the alternative I uploaded as worse, or are you primarily concerned about the change not having been previously discussed? --Waldyrious (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I had those discussions via direct messages during the drafting of this proposal, although it might have been mentioned on the proposal talk-page as well. The uploads do indicate the changes I made. The edited version to me is a regression; the adjusting of the parking bay width is unnecessary (in reality widths do vary, and parallel bays are often less wide), but more importantly, by changing the colours you undo the highlighting of the parking=street_side bays. The yellow doesn't help much. The change seems unnecessary. What were you trying to improve? --JeroenHoek (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I see, there's a bit here that does provide some context.

The reasoning for the change I uploaded was to preserve the usual appearance of the map (I'm no fan of Carto myself, but for better or worse, it's what most people are used to) so that it becomes more immediately evident what is being depicted. The first time I saw the image it took me a few seconds to figure out what I was looking at because everything was darkened and low contrast in a way that's not common even in darker or deliberately low-contrast styles (those tend to be designed explicitly with those goals in mind).

I used yellow precisely to make the parking spots stand out more than mere white, and even adjusted the remaining colors to be a little more muted (not in a noticeable way) to provide increased color contrast. My goal was to preserve the highlighting aspect, and I believed that I did. I'd be happy to make the yellow brighter and more vibrant if you think that was not enough. Alternatively, have you considered using a different base style (say, something like Positron), where elements could be highlighted without darkening the whole image? --Waldyrious (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I drew this image myself, it is not a rendering. It only mimics the Carto style for familiarity. I'm sorry, but the yellow-highlighted version just doesn't work for me. The style used also matches the other image further down on the page with the notes about area-tagging. I'm not convinced it needs changing after all these years. Thanks for the other wiki edits around this topic by the way. The template for reusing the lane/street_side bit is useful. --JeroenHoek (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries, it's not a big deal. I'm glad you found my other edits useful. See you around, Waldyrious (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)