Distinguish different memorial types

[Tomasz-W]

Currently we render all of memorials by just two icons, which are not every time match real object shape well. I would like to propose more icons to distinguich certain types of memorials.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:memorial

My proposition:

• memorial=war_memorial
  ('memorial' icon)
• memorial=plaque
  ('plaque' icon)
• memorial=blue_plaque
  ('plaque' icon)
• memorial=statue
  (new)
• memorial=bust
  (new)
• memorial=stele
  ('memorial' icon)
• memorial=stolperstein
  ('plaque' icon)
• memorial=stone
  (new)
• memorial=obelisk
  (new)

For comparsion:

• (obelisk icon proposal)

• (historic=monument current icon)

• (statue icon proposal)

• (tourism=artwork current icon)

Potentially. we could think about change tourism=artwork icon. Some fast-made ideas (lower block set to 50% transparency):

1. 
2. 
3. 

[kocio-pl]

Thanks for trying with another set of icons!

I'd rather not change the artwork icon to anything bigger. It was hard to find something generic enough and unobtrusive (see #855 and #2236).

[kocio-pl]

See also proposed rendering of towers (and masts) by @BushmanK and @wmyrda. The problem is however smaller, since they use different color (man-made gray).

[Tomasz-W]

Comparsion:

(tower in man_made-grey)
(obelisk in historic-brown)

For me, it's ok as it is.

[Tomasz-W]

Gist links:

• memorial=statue https://gist.github.com/Tomasz-W/56b546f36ca1156856c05f958a8dad01
• memorial=bust https://gist.github.com/Tomasz-W/83c3f9fc135c5d8b0919a9d05eb4017b
• memorial=stone https://gist.github.com/Tomasz-W/f1306db9c0086f0d209c50a9bf30ec73
• memorial=obelisk https://gist.github.com/Tomasz-W/69bc32441fe75c42333915165a01732c

[geozeisig]

memorial:type=stolperstein is much more common than memorial=stolperstein. If now memorial=stolperstein is to be rendered we must clarify before how we can make a mass edith.

[kocio-pl]

I was reporting the problem of stolperstein and blue_plaque definitions once on Tagging, but got no response. They need some unification or just cleaning, but we can decide on our own what we want to render and how, of course.

[matthijsmelissen]

Thanks for working on this.

To be honest, I think this proposal goes into too much detail, and I wouldnt be happy to add so much new icons for relatively similar objects.

[jragusa]

Ok, I'm taking care of this thread.

[jragusa]

@Tomasz-W in reference to your comment of 27/02, there is 3 different icons to compare:
man_made=tower
man_made=obelisk
historic=monument

Currently, obelisks are rendered in a similar way than historic=monument

[Tomasz-W]

Currently, obelisks are rendered in a similar way than historic=monument

It's not similar way, it's the same icon.

I didn't know about man_made=obelisk tag, I though there is "memorial=obelisk" subtag (as it is kind of memorial), but Wiki says that man_made=obelist is the proper tag.
The TagInfo stats are:

• 463 of man_made=obelisk https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/man_made=obelisk
• 174 of memorial=obelisk https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/memorial=obelisk
• 112 of memorial:type=obelisk https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/memorial%3Atype=obelisk

I think a new obelisk icon should be used for man_made=obelisk.
memorial=obelisk and memorial:type=obelisk objects should be edited to correct tag of man_made=obelisk.

[jragusa]

Indeed, there is 3 different tags for the same feature and the wiki does not provide any difference between memorial and man_made.

I would suggest to propose a new icon for monument with a different shape to better differentiate from obelisk. Both present a vertical shape and I'm not sure that people will understand the difference. We can also leave the current one to obelisk which remains different to man_made=tower.

Additionally, I'm wondering about the zoom level. Currently:

• basic memorial tag z=17
• subtag memorial (plaque, etc) z=19
• obelisk and monument z=16

Should I change something or leave as it ?

[Tomasz-W]

Any other comments about obelisk/ monument icons? As always, I'm open for icon ideas.

@kocio-pl Can you review the topic and share your thoughts? You know the proper zoom levels for certain features the best :)

[dieterdreist]

IMHO we should render only man_made=obelisk. It is the first of these tags and the one with the most usage. The other tags don't have different semantics / meaning so supporting them will only lead to tag fragmentation.

[Tomasz-W]

What do you think about historic=memorial + amenity=bench combination? Should it be rendered as memorial, bench or do you want special icon for it?

Examples:

[jragusa]

I can test if you submit an icon. Otherwise, I thought about an equestrian statue (example) but it's probably too much detailled.

[SomeoneElseOSM]

If it helps anyone, feel free to draw inspiration from the icons at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=17&lat=-25.005818&lon=135.17675 and e.g. https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/openstreetmap-carto-AJT/blob/master/symbols/memorial_bench.png ).

[Tomasz-W]

@jragusa Can you test it?

Gist link: https://gist.github.com/Tomasz-W/9ad756936dab43da9383c6586551e2e0

PS. As there is no special tag for equestrian statues, I think we don't need to worry about them :) See:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/memorial#values

[jragusa]

et voilà:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5051735103
memorial_center.svg

memorial_left.svg

@Tomasz-W I meant using an equestrian statue as generic icon for monument.

[jragusa]

Currently,

memorial=statue
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3822475193
Note the difference with tourism=artwork to the right

memorial=bust
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5501258534
Note the two memorial=stele to the bottom right

memorial=stone
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4987880673

[Tomasz-W]

For memorial benches I vote for 'left' version. I also would like to see a test rendering of man_made=obelisk new icon next to historic=monument.

PS. @jragusa Did you download my icons after 11.06? I was pixel-aligning them and meanwhile I've updated the files in Gist links.

[jragusa]

I don't remember but I did the first commit on 12/06 so, in case of, I will reupload your icons

[matthijsmelissen]

To be honest, I think this proposal goes into too much detail, and I wouldnt be happy to add so much new icons for relatively similar objects.

Unfortunately, nobody has responded to this.

I'm still not convinced how much we're gaining from rendering different monument types.

[kocio-pl]

Well, for me these are 2 issues: more icons and more detailed rendering rules. More icons are good because they are representing what people see on the ground more accurately and more detailed rules are good to avoid clutter (in this case something I started with #2689, which was the most severe problem).

This is related to the freedom of categorizing and tagging. We try to render tags, because it's simpler technically, but I believe we should render things people see. It's hard to tell if something is forest or woods, so we show the trees, which is what people see (poor tagging definitions is secondary here). It's easy to tell if the memorial is statue or obelisk, so they should be rendered differently (if we have proper icons, not by all means).

[matthijsmelissen]

More icons are good because they are representing what people see on the ground more accurately

The risk of adding more icons, though, is that map users will need to spend more effort in order to ‘learn’ the meaning if all symbols.

[kocio-pl]

But we design icons depicting things more accurately, so in my opinion it will make it easier to recognize than currently, not harder.

[Adamant36]

There should be a link on the main site to a list of the icons and their meanings like there is for the road type key.
Most of the icons are are pretty intuative, but some aren't, and most maps explain what the icons on them are either way. So it would still probably help.

[Tomasz-W]

@Adamant36 See #1928

[SomeoneElseOSM]

(previous comment moved to openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website#1307 (comment) where it makes more sense)

[kocio-pl]

I like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Standard_tile_layer/Key more, but that's a problem that it's big (and needs updates), while OSM.org website has some short legend, but not suited for such a rich style, and doesn't have even link to this page.

[Tomasz-W]

@SomeoneElseOSM @kocio-pl
Here's more proper ticket to discuss this issue openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website#1307 ;)

[jragusa]

@Tomasz-W I updated icons

Few questions remains about obelisk:
1/ which icon should I include ? the former one or the new one ? (see this comment)
2/ obelisk is currently set to z16. Should I leave as it or shift to z17 (as the generic icon) or z19 (as dedicated icons) ?

[Tomasz-W]

@jragusa

1. everything like in comment which you have mantioned, so the new one (to distinguish obelisk from monument, because at this moment both tags have the same icon)
2. z17

[jragusa]

man_made=obelisk
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/72937686

Before

After

[Tomasz-W]

@jragusa it's not memorial=obelisk but man_made=obelisk ;) (test rendering is correct but its description isn't, because we decided not to render memorial=obelisk)

[jragusa]

@Tomasz-W sorry it's a typo error. It's actually a man_made=obelisk :)

[Tomasz-W]

@jragusa Are you willing to make a PR for this issue?

[jragusa]

Sorry for the long pause, I had to finish corrections on a manuscript. I'm working on it.

[Tomasz-W]

If someone has an idea for better non-statue artwork icon, give me an info.

There are some of my experiments based on example outdoor artworks: https://www.google.pl/search?client=opera&hs=H4C&biw=1920&bih=981&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=riCBW_KcKsOzswGE2ofgBA&q=outdoor+sculpture&oq=outdoor+sculpture&gs_l=img.3...84912.88116.0.88235.16.12.0.0.0.0.117.690.4j3.7.0....0...1c.1.64.img..11.5.477...0j0i7i30k1j0i8i7i30k1j0i67k1.0.Kibj5gIil0E#imgrc=_

[wmyrda]

I was thinking about something like https://abstractmetaldesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Abstract-Metal-Design411.jpg so as second proposition looks closest to it I am all for it.
Shape of that kind is abstract enough not to resemble anything in particular therefore would not be mistaken with anything else. Third proposition on the other hand looks close enough to the chess figure and could for some imply garden chess.

[Tomasz-W]

@wmyrda Please see #3356 (comment)