Travel Mapping
Web Design Discussion => General Web Design Discussion => Topic started by: Jim on September 07, 2016, 10:31:07 pm
-
There's some discussion in a different thread (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=131.msg2294;topicseen#msg2294) about adding a new color entry for some of the newer "Tier 4" European systems.
I think this warrants a larger discussion of how the colors are determined for a given highway system, and what those colors should be. As it stands, we have the color names like "blue", "red", "green", etc. in the systems.csv file. Those names are only used to look up actual color codes in the mapping code, where a static array maps color names to the RGB codes to use for clinched and unclinched segments of routes in that system. I don't remember when or how the color names got into systems.csv, but I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to have the colors specified by name there.
Instead, would the ideas below make more sense?
1) Eliminate the color names altogether from the CSVs and base the colors strictly on the tier.
2) Come up with other names to include in the systems.csv like "primarynational", "secondarynational", "primarystate", "tourist", etc. that would instead be used to select colors. This would allow things like the use of an alternate color for the European systems that sparked the discussion. There would be nothing stopping us from assigning the same color to multiple categories like "secondarynational" and "secondarycontinental" might both correspond to the current "red".
-
I agree with you that the current setup doesn't really work particularly well. IMO your first option doesn't quite solve the problem, since there seems to be a need for more colors than we have tiers in use, so unless you increase the number of tiers, I would prefer your second option or something closer to it.
-
We should consider that there might be a future "user defined color", see #10 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/10) or #21 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/21). For that reason, it makes sense to eliminate colors from systems.csv.
I would be fine with a strictly tier based color code but there might be some discussion... For instance, blue-teal-green-lightsalmon-brown would be my preferred European color code.
Tier 1 systems are currently blue but tier 2 is teal in Europe, red in Canada and green or red in USA (usaib/usaus). Tier 3 is teal, red, green or magenta.
I think alias names should remain in systems.csv but "primarynational" would be tier 1, "secondarynational" tier 2, "primarycontinental" tier 3.... and we would still have the same problem like strictly tier based. If we already had the user-specific colors, everyone could set his preferred colors once but we don't have it right now.
I don't like primarynationaleurope and primarynationalnorthamerica, primarynationalasia et cetera...
Maybe we should keep it as it is for the time being and only add lightsalmon...
-
No harm in adding the "lightsalmon" color for now while we discuss, so that's done and live on the site. It's now available for systems.csv entries to use.
-
I thought that the tiers were mostly for which roads are more important and therefore displayed as the layer on top when more important in a multiplex or road crossing. Tying the colors to a layer could mean arguments about which tier some road set belongs to or adding more tiers to get the colors. Having more of guidelines as to which colors indicate what is better, since the colors do kind of try to go with the road signs and finding a world where US Business Interstates are the same as a European E Road is just a little awkward. I think the lightsalmon is close enough to the red of the US Numbered Highways and the magenta US Auxiliary Numbered Highways that we have gotten used to that it works. US, Canada, Mexico, Europe, and Asia may match up fairly closely in what road systems are equivalent, but not quite exact for what is equal beyond tier 1.
-
Perhaps something in between the idea of having classifications of "primarynational" (which are similar to tiers) and the current system would be to have a section of instead having those be groupings of systems that are similar to each other and have a defined color (for example, we could have "usastate" which would have a default color of brown); that would allow colors to be assigned for types of route (instead of by system) but doesn't run into the issues of how to deal with routes at the same tier that should have different colors (such as business interstates) or issues between different route classification schemes between the US and Europe.
-
groupings of systems that are similar to each other (for example, we could have "usastate" which would have a default color of brown)
It's similar to before mentioned primarynationaleurope and primarynationalnorthamerica, primarynationalasia et cetera...
-
I don't recall "primarynationaleurope" and "primarynationalnorthamerica", just "primarynational" (except in your post, where you mention not liking them without context). In any case, I'm not sure what else would work better than what we have now. At the very least, it would make it easier for users who like to define their own colors.
-
I don't recall "primarynationaleurope" and "primarynationalnorthamerica", just "primarynational" (except in your post, where you mention not liking them without context).
primarynational is like using tiers. But prefered colors are minimum different for North America and Europe. For that reason, I wrote that we would need primarynationaleurope et cetera.
In any case, I'm not sure what else would work better than what we have now. At the very least, it would make it easier for users who like to define their own colors.
Once user would have a possibility to define own colors, I'd prefer defining it tier-related because the user can change it as desired!
-
Once user would have a possibility to define own colors, I'd prefer defining it tier-related because the user can change it as desired!
I'd prefer something other than tier-related, since there are too many tier-4 systems in the US (usanp, usaush, and the various state systems) and users should be able to differentiate between them. If it were up to me, usanp & usaush should be brown (same color as their signs) and the state systems a different color (black or grey, possibly).
-
I'd like to have a relatively simple scheme for specifying default colors, but a lot of flexibility for users. How about if users could specify colors by tier, but then override for specific systems?
-
Once user would have a possibility to define own colors, I'd prefer defining it tier-related because the user can change it as desired!
I'd prefer something other than tier-related, since there are too many tier-4 systems in the US (usanp, usaush, and the various state systems) and users should be able to differentiate between them. If it were up to me, usanp & usaush should be brown (same color as their signs) and the state systems a different color (black or grey, possibly).
Personally, I'd rather not change the existing default color... what about that gold color that CHM used for the future interstates?
-
I'd like to have a relatively simple scheme for specifying default colors, but a lot of flexibility for users. How about if users could specify colors by tier, but then override for specific systems?
Works for me.
Personally, I'd rather not change the existing default color... what about that gold color that CHM used for the future interstates?
Ideally you could choose whatever colors you wanted...I was just pointing out how and why I would make an adjustment to how the maps would appear on my devices if given the ability to do so.
-
Anyone remember the syntax for custom colors?
Search for "colors" to find examples. It was tier based, e.g.:
&colors=tier4:rgb(255,255,255):rgb(0,0,0)
I had a try and it doesn't work anymore :(
We have eight TM colors right now (blue, brown, red, yellow, teal, green, magenta and lightsalmon). The color codes can be found here: https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/blob/master/lib/tmjsfuncs.js#L116
-
The custom color syntax didn't get brought over with the new code for showroute and mapview. I can add it back.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/577
-
Related to the multiple purposes for brown routes in the US, it's easy enough to add more builtin colors. Brown is a natural for things like historic and park systems. It would be a highly visible but I think harmless change to make the state systems some new color. I agree with the comment upthread that the lightsalmon's not good.
-
I went ahead and used GIMP to fake some new colors. Orange and black are attached. Not really a fan of the black to be honest. I also tested a darker purple, but not only was it ugly, it had poor contrast with the existing "magenta" (really doesn't look magenta to me) used for Auxiliary US Routes. A lighter pink would probably be close enough to light salmon to not bother with trying.
Speaking of light salmon, it seems like it fades into the background a lot more than the gold that is used for Tier 5 systems. Shouldn't higher tier systems, in general, stand out more than lower tier ones? If we decide the orange is decent, maybe it would be a good candidate to replace light salmon.
-
And here is another test I did, with a dark green. I also attached a couple other spots showing how it contrasts with the light green used for business interstates and teal used for usaif, usasf, and usanyp. Green is also associated with parks, so this might be a less disruptive option for usaush, usanp, and a potential byways system.
-
I like dark green for things like usanp and usaush. Would prefer to not alter any longstanding colors (e.g. leave state routes brown).
-
The custom color syntax didn't get brought over with the new code for showroute and mapview. I can add it back.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/577
This functionality is now restored for mapview and showroute on the main server. (anyone want to go through and split off this discussion of colors to its own thread?)
-
Perhaps a bigger problem is that brown is also the state highway color in the US and so it's harder to filter out when looking at maps than it is in, say Europe, where brown is only used for tourist routes.
Perhaps a bigger problem is that brown is also the state highway color in the US and so it's harder to filter out when looking at maps than it is in, say Europe, where brown is only used for tourist routes.
I'd be quite open to throwing in another color for primary state routes so that historic/tourist routes could be their own thing. I don't think orange, purple, or black are used right now.
I'd be quite open to throwing in another color for primary state routes so that historic/tourist routes could be their own thing. I don't think orange, purple, or black are used right now.
Eh, they've been brown for a long time now, so it would be jarring to change. That said, gray/black (formerly used for borders, but I don't think there are plans to bring back the CHM-style maps) is available, provided it's not be too ugly... I don't really like the "plain" view in Mapview, but maybe it wouldn't be so bad on a multi-system display. Purple is (or at least similar to) the US Auxiliary Routes system color, and orange is probably close to the gold used for secondary systems. Green is also around... currently used only for interstate business routes. Anyone remember the syntax for custom colors?
There's also visibility to work out... the light salmon color used outside of North America really does not stand out against the map, especially for untraveled routes, but it might be the best option for balancing contrast against other systems and aesthetics if we want brown reserved for historic and scenic routes.
-
FYI, if anyone is curious how this looks in the "real world" (feel free to sub in your own username): https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?units=miles&u=vdeane&v&colors=usanp:rgb(61,94,77):rgb(24,132,70);usaush:rgb(61,94,77):rgb(24,132,70)
EDIT: I was playing around with the colors some more, and it looks like the purple used for the Auxiliary US Routes and the gold used for secondary systems aren't actually defined in that color list for some reason; they're not quite a match for magenta or yellow.
I like dark green for things like usanp and usaush. Would prefer to not alter any longstanding colors (e.g. leave state routes brown).
And also cannss, whenever it moves to preview.
-
My preference would be to use brown in North America only for National Park and other tourist routes (plus Historic US, if those are kept around). I've never liked it for the state and provincial systems. As for the other suggestions, I'm not a fan of the orange or dark green (or light salmon). Jim posted black, but that's too dark. However, to my eyes dark grey works really well:
https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?units=miles&u=mapcat&v&colors=usaky:rgb(75,75,75):rgb(75,75,75 (https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?units=miles&u=mapcat&v&colors=usaky:rgb(75,75,75):rgb(75,75,75))
I tested it centered on Benton, KY, to show most of the colors (all except yellow) currently in use in the US (zoom out to see usanp brown in Land Between the Lakes, usaib green in Paducah and usakyp teal in Mayfield). Anything lower than (50,50,50) seems too dark to me, and over (100,100,100) seems too light, but there's some room to play with it. When you zoom out to see more of the state, it doesn't overpower the other colors, and usai blue and usaus red still look more important.
-
I have merged the topics because there was some interesting discussion in 2016 - same users like now - we might consider :)
-
However, to my eyes dark grey works really well:
https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?units=miles&u=mapcat&v&colors=usaky:rgb(75,75,75):rgb(75,75,75 (https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?units=miles&u=mapcat&v&colors=usaky:rgb(75,75,75):rgb(75,75,75))
Looks good in combination with blue and red.
-
That grey is very fetching.
-
I could get behind that gray color for state routes. I do like the idea or separating the state routes from usanp. It would be easier to change just usanp to gray, but I agree that brown actually makes more sense for National Park routes.
-
I'm not a huge fan of the gray. However, it's definitely better than full black, at least. How much it seems to crowd the other colors seems to depend on zoom - I feel like I can see the interstates, US routes, etc. better in the existing color when viewing the whole of NY, for example.
One idea I don't think we've considered is taking a page from Australia and using gold for the primary state routes and light salmon for the secondary systems, with usanp, usaush, and usatxre retaining brown. Here is what it looks like (https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?units=miles&u=vdeane&v&colors=tier4:rgb(255,216,100):rgb(232,176,0);usanp:rgb(153,152,102):rgb(153,102,0);usaush:rgb(153,152,102):rgb(153,102,0);tier5:rgb(224,162,162):rgb(240,150,115);usatxre:rgb(153,152,102):rgb(153,102,0)).
Personally, my top choice remains using the dark green for usanp, usaush, and usatxre with brown retained for state routes, but making the display more like Australia as detailed above would be my second choice. In any case, a large-scale change should also have coordination with the systems in development in Mexico and elsewhere that use the US/Canada color scheme, and perhaps also a revisit of how things are handled elsewhere in the world (especially as Europe and Australia are basically opposites for gold/light salmon usage).
-
perhaps also a revisit of how things are handled elsewhere in the world (especially as Europe and Australia are basically opposites for gold/light salmon usage).
I think Europe is fine. No need to change anything.
-
IMO just about any color scheme we can come up with doesn't work well against the OSM background; it's just the nature of the beast. When I look at mapview I'll usually change to ESRI WorldTopo; I find it easier on the eyes.
-
Of course that gets back to my long-term wish of being able to run our own tile server and design custom tile sets that work well for us...
Also, I like the look of the gold for state routes as vdeane demonstrated. I know some have expressed that it would seem disruptive to switch colors when people are so used to what we have, however.
-
I don't like the "gold" (originally referred to as orange) so much for state routes since it's a bright color.
One good feature of the current US scheme that I do think we want to keep (and replicate elsewhere as practical) is to visually reinforce a sense of hierarchy by reserving bright colors for Tier 1/2/3 systems and keeping Tier 4/5 systems in more muted tones.
To this end, I do kind of like the #4B4B4B gray as shown michih's example for tier 4 state route systems. Might even like it better than brown.
-
Keep in mind that the gold (officially called "yellow" even though yellow implies a much brighter color to me) I used in my link isn't the orange proposed earlier - it's the same gold currently used for the B Roads in Australia and Tier 5 systems everywhere else (yes, even the US and Canada). So even if you go with gray (which I still don't like... it looks good when zoomed in close, but not when zoomed further out), it would still be in use in the US for a system that isn't a top tier unless a new color for the state/provincial secondary systems was also proposed.
Personally, I think using either the gold or light salmon would be a much less jarring switch than the gray. So if we don't want the gold, then I guess my third choice would be to switch to light salmon to match Europe. I don't like how the gray crowds out the other colors when zoomed out to view a whole region or how it looks drab when looking at an area that doesn't have many other route colors (such as zooming in close on Long Island or around Rochester).
One interesting thing I noticed: when using custom colors in Mapview, one can put in the color names instead of RGB values, but some of them (notably brown, "magenta", and "yellow") look different than they do when not setting manual colors.
perhaps also a revisit of how things are handled elsewhere in the world (especially as Europe and Australia are basically opposites for gold/light salmon usage).
I think Europe is fine. No need to change anything.
Everything is so inconsistent, though. It's understandable with the E roads, but especially if the regions ended up with the same Tier 4 and 5 colors, just swapped, that would be weird.
IMO the gold stands out more than the light salmon, which makes it weird that it's for the lower tier system, though Europe Tier 5 systems are so dense (to the point where I wonder if they're the equivalent of county routes) that they'll overwhelm just about any color used.
IMO just about any color scheme we can come up with doesn't work well against the OSM background; it's just the nature of the beast. When I look at mapview I'll usually change to ESRI WorldTopo; I find it easier on the eyes.
That does match up with TM quite well. Even the unclinched light salmon stands out!
-
One interesting thing I noticed: when using custom colors in Mapview, one can put in the color names instead of RGB values, but some of them (notably brown, "magenta", and "yellow") look different than they do when not setting manual colors.
I believe anything CSS understands as a color style should work as custom color specifications. rgb(r,g,b), #rgb, #rrggbb, and any defined names of colors.
-
Keep in mind that the gold (officially called "yellow" even though yellow implies a much brighter color to me) I used in my link isn't the orange proposed earlier - it's the same gold currently used for the B Roads in Australia and Tier 5 systems everywhere else (yes, even the US and Canada).
The name is just an enumation for a code: https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/blob/master/lib/tmjsfuncs.js#L116
var colorCodes = new Array();
colorCodes[0] = { name: "blue", unclinched: "rgb(100,100,255)", clinched: "rgb(0,0,220)" };
colorCodes[1] = { name: "brown", unclinched: "rgb(153,152,102)", clinched: "rgb(153,102,0)" };
colorCodes[2] = { name: "red", unclinched: "rgb(255,100,100)", clinched: "rgb(224,0,0)" };
colorCodes[3] = { name: "yellow", unclinched: "rgb(255,216,100)", clinched: "rgb(232,176,0)" };
colorCodes[4] = { name: "teal", unclinched: "rgb(100,200,200)", clinched: "rgb(0,140,160)" };
colorCodes[5] = { name: "green", unclinched: "rgb(100,200,100)", clinched: "rgb(0,224,0)" };
colorCodes[6] = { name: "magenta", unclinched: "rgb(255,100,255)", clinched: "rgb(208,0,208)" };
colorCodes[7] = { name: "lightsalmon", unclinched: "rgb(224,162,162)", clinched: "rgb(240,150,115)" };
We modified the codes to look "good" on OSM tiles back in 2016.
So even if you go with gray (which I still don't like... it looks good when zoomed in close, but not when zoomed further out), it would still be in use in the US for a system that isn't a top tier unless a new color for the state/provincial secondary systems was also proposed.
I think that it still looks good when zoomed out. We could try to find a slightly brighter grey for "clinched".
perhaps also a revisit of how things are handled elsewhere in the world (especially as Europe and Australia are basically opposites for gold/light salmon usage).
I think Europe is fine. No need to change anything.
Everything is so inconsistent, though. It's understandable with the E roads, but especially if the regions ended up with the same Tier 4 and 5 colors, just swapped, that would be weird.
What is inconsistent?
Where are tier 4 + 5 colors swapped?
IMO the gold stands out more than the light salmon, which makes it weird that it's for the lower tier system, though Europe Tier 5 systems are so dense (to the point where I wonder if they're the equivalent of county routes) that they'll overwhelm just about any color used.
Please use "yellow" instead of "gold" or "orange" so that everyone knows what we are talking about.
Note that the main issue back in 2016 was to find good color codes for clinched and unclinched.
With "gold" you just refer to the "yellow color code for clinched" but don't forget the "yellow color code for unclinched".
To be honest, the "unclinched" colors where the bigger issue back in 2016. Just select "Highlight Untraveled" on mapview and look at Europe. "Lightsalmon" sticks out quite good compared to "yellow" * and it sticks out to the OSM tile! I agree that "yellow" stands out more when you select "Highlight Traveled" but most non-local users travel the "lightsalmon" routes first.
*The density of the "yellow" (Tier 5) systems in some European regions makes it more difficult though. Most of it was developed after 2016 :)
IMO just about any color scheme we can come up with doesn't work well against the OSM background; it's just the nature of the beast. When I look at mapview I'll usually change to ESRI WorldTopo; I find it easier on the eyes.
That does match up with TM quite well. Even the unclinched light salmon stands out!
As mentioned above, light salmon is designed to stand out compared to yellow for untraveled routes.
-
IMO just about any color scheme we can come up with doesn't work well against the OSM background; it's just the nature of the beast.
I disagree. I think the current color scheme for Europe works good. The "Highlight traveled"/"Highlight untraveled" toggle is very important to identify untraveled segments in a region where I do already have a lot of travels.
To this end, I do kind of like the #4B4B4B gray as shown michih's example for tier 4 state route systems. Might even like it better than brown.
It was mapcat's example though :)
https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?units=miles&u=mapcat&v&colors=usaky:rgb(75,75,75):rgb(75,75,75 (https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?units=miles&u=mapcat&v&colors=usaky:rgb(75,75,75):rgb(75,75,75))
-
What is inconsistent?
Where are tier 4 + 5 colors swapped?
Australia, where I went with the national colours of green and gold (well 'yellow'), using the latter for B/State systems - in part because all the alphanumeric route designations are yellow text on green (taken from UK primary routes, AFAICS).
I'm only using lightsalmon for C roads/Metropolitan Routes in lieu of another colour that isn't brown (which I'm using for tourist routes) - that grey would do very nicely.
I don't think there's anything wrong with different land masses doing different colour schemes.
-
Got it. While light salmon is used for tier 4 systems in Europe, it is used for tier 5 in Australia. Yellow is used for tier 5 in Europe and tier 4 in Australia. That means, yellow is "higher" than light salmon in Australia which is contrary to Europe.
-
I think that it still looks good when zoomed out. We could try to find a slightly brighter grey for "clinched".
That's a good idea. I tried it out - it takes some getting used to, but I think I can get behind it. The tier 5 systems looked pretty bright in comparison, so I changed them to light salmon. Here's the test rendering. (https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?units=miles&u=vdeane&v&colors=tier4:rgb(100,100,100):rgb(100,100,100);usanp:rgb(153,152,102):rgb(153,102,0);usaush:rgb(153,152,102):rgb(153,102,0);tier5:rgb(224,162,162):rgb(240,150,115);usatxre:rgb(153,152,102):rgb(153,102,0))
EDIT: I also took a look at the area around Paris in that color scheme, to see how Europe looked in it. Looks like the Tier 4 systems stand out well relative to Tier 5 in both clinched and unclinched.
One interesting thing I noticed: when using custom colors in Mapview, one can put in the color names instead of RGB values, but some of them (notably brown, "magenta", and "yellow") look different than they do when not setting manual colors.
I believe anything CSS understands as a color style should work as custom color specifications. rgb(r,g,b), #rgb, #rrggbb, and any defined names of colors.
Ah, that explains it! I didn't realize it was just taking CSS color codes and thought they related to the ones in the system...
-
I think that it still looks good when zoomed out. We could try to find a slightly brighter grey for "clinched".
That's a good idea. I tried it out - it takes some getting used to, but I think I can get behind it. The tier 5 systems looked pretty bright in comparison, so I changed them to light salmon. Here's the test rendering. (https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?units=miles&u=vdeane&v&colors=tier4:rgb(100,100,100):rgb(100,100,100);usanp:rgb(153,152,102):rgb(153,102,0);usaush:rgb(153,152,102):rgb(153,102,0);tier5:rgb(224,162,162):rgb(240,150,115);usatxre:rgb(153,152,102):rgb(153,102,0))
EDIT: I also took a look at the area around Paris in that color scheme, to see how Europe looked in it. Looks like the Tier 4 systems stand out well relative to Tier 5 in both clinched and unclinched.
I also like that for Europe! You use the "new" grey for tier 4 and light salmon for tier 5. Both, traveled and untraveled look good!
-
+1 for Valerie's tier 4/tier 5 scheme.
-
The Legend box does not get updated with user-specified colors.
-
The Legend box does not get updated with user-specified colors.
Yes, already an Issue: https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/579
-
I've created a few Issues related to overlay colors. My plan is to rename the colors in the array at https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/blob/d0c6a809d452d3c8fccd77616be3471338689f0f/lib/tmjsfuncs.js#L115 with a TM prefix, update the color names in systems.csv to match, add a few more predefined color options, then allow any of the predefined colors to be used in the colors= QS params (in addition to the CSS color specifications we can use now).
https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/580
https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/581
https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/582
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/issues/4464
-
So related to this, I'm looking for names and RGB codes for clinched and unclinched colors that we might want to use as default colors for some systems and make available as easy options for users to specify in colors= QS params. So far, I've seen some support for a gray option.
-
The Legend box does not get updated with user-specified colors.
Yes, already an Issue: https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/579
Fix should be live on the main site.
-
The colors have been renamed in systems.csv and the main site's code has been updated to use the new color names. I don't expect anyone to notice any difference, but let me know if you do (but please force reload any page that gives you problems first because you might have a cached old version of tmjsfuncs.js).
-
And https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/581 is now implemented and on the main site.
For the colors= QS param, you can still specify a pair of CSS colors for clinched and unclinched (even the same one and rely on the opacity difference to indicate clinched vs. unclinched), but also now can specify a single TM predefined color (ones used in systems.csv, now with a "TM" prefix).
Here's an example that results in a fairly bad-looking color combination:
https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?units=miles&u=terescoj&v&colors=usany:black:black;usai:TMlightsalmon;tier2:rgb(150,0,200):rgb(200,0,225);usavt:TMgreen
-
I'm adding TMgray to the colorCodes array, will be up soon and available for use in colors=.
colorCodes[8] = { name: "TMgray", unclinched: "rgb(75,75,75)", clinched: "rgb(75,75,75)" };
What are the actual color definitions for some of the other people have discussed here? I'm looking at one that was referred to as orange and another dark green. I'd like to add those as options, even if they don't become the default for any systems at this point.
-
It would be nice to have variants for the whole wheel of colours, even if we don't use them all.
(colours here are approximate, using forum software equivalents, with bold being the ones we don't have)
Blue-Teal
Green-Dark Green
Yellow-Orange-Brown
Red-Lightsalmon
Magenta-Purple
White-Gray-Black
TLDR: Purple please, as well as the Orange and Dark Green. And Black and White just because.
-
I'm adding TMgray to the colorCodes array, will be up soon and available for use in colors=.
colorCodes[8] = { name: "TMgray", unclinched: "rgb(75,75,75)", clinched: "rgb(75,75,75)" };
What are the actual color definitions for some of the other people have discussed here? I'm looking at one that was referred to as orange and another dark green. I'd like to add those as options, even if they don't become the default for any systems at this point.
FYI, the gray I used in my test rendering (which seemed to get rave reviews) used 100,100,100 for both clinched and unclinched gray.
The dark green used in that rendering was 61,94,77 and 24,132,70. If I remember right, unclinched goes first in the URL, so that would be unclinched, clinched, respectively. I didn't get far enough along with the orange to have firm RGB values (I just eyeballed something in GIMP and drew over a screenshot).
FYI: One of the recent updates changed the order the URL is parsed for colors; as a result, the tiers now need to be defined last rather than first in the test renderings I posted.
-
I like the current TMgray but would not complain if you switch to 100,100,100.
Will there eventually be a cookie or something to preserve the colors param? For example, it resets when following the link from region.php & mapview.php.
-
Will there eventually be a cookie or something to preserve the colors param? For example, it resets when following the link from region.php & mapview.php.
Eventually there will be something, probably a combination of a UI that lets you specify colors and a way to remember them. Not likely in the near future, however.
-
I like the current TMgray but would not complain if you switch to 100,100,100.
That gray actually looks like black on my monitor. It's even darker than the color used for "plain".
-
I've lightened up TMgray and added 3 more for everyone's comment.
colorCodes[8] = { name: "TMgray", unclinched: "rgb(100,100,100)", clinched: "rgb(100,100,100)" };
colorCodes[9] = { name: "TMdarkgreen", unclinched: "rgb(61,94,77)", clinched: "rgb(24,132,70)" };
colorCodes[10] = { name: "TMpurple", unclinched: "rgb(128,0,128)", clinched: "rgb(150,28,220)" };
colorCodes[11] = { name: "TMorange", unclinched: "rgb(255,180,50)", clinched: "rgb(255,165,0)" };
-
So I just noticed an issue: whenever I try to specify a TM color in Mapview, it comes out instead as black. CSS colors and RGB values work OK, but not TM colors. Oddly enough, your sample "bad-looking combination" link works fine, so I'm not sure what's going on.
-
I like the current TMgray but would not complain if you switch to 100,100,100.
That gray actually looks like black on my monitor. It's even darker than the color used for "plain".
Agree, see Finland: https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?rg=FIN (use "Highlight All / None" to check how it looks like for traveled / not traveled routes).
I suggest two default colors: TMgrey = 75,75,75 and TMdarkgrey = 100,100,100.
-
I've lightened up TMgray and added 3 more for everyone's comment.
Thanks.
I suggest two default colors: TMgrey = 75,75,75 and TMdarkgrey = 100,100,100.
75,75,75 is the darker, previous, variant.
The current grey is fine for me, but I could understand using a 50% variant (128,128,128).
PS: nice En-GB spelling of grey, but in the US-of-A they spell 'grey' with an 'a'. :P
-
I suggest two default colors: TMgrey = 75,75,75 and TMdarkgrey = 100,100,100.
75,75,75 is the darker, previous, variant.
I think that it always depends on the background. The tiles with its colors. They also depend on the surroundings of the region where you test it. What I had in mind from KY was brighter than what I see in FIN now :)
PS: I prefer AE. But I think both usually work. TMgrey + TMgray with same params?
PS: [color=grey]I prefer AE[/Color]. But I think [color=gray]both usually work[/color].
-
PS: nice En-GB spelling of grey, but in the US-of-A they spell 'grey' with an 'a'. :P
Both spellings are used & accepted in fact.
-
So I just noticed an issue: whenever I try to specify a TM color in Mapview, it comes out instead as black. CSS colors and RGB values work OK, but not TM colors. Oddly enough, your sample "bad-looking combination" link works fine, so I'm not sure what's going on.
Anyone else seeing similar problems? Might be worth force-reloading to make sure tmjsfuncs.js is a fresh copy.
-
Looking at the orange and purple implemented, they're close to existing colors, so I imagine those would be more for user customization or as alternates for the existing magenta and yellow.
So I just noticed an issue: whenever I try to specify a TM color in Mapview, it comes out instead as black. CSS colors and RGB values work OK, but not TM colors. Oddly enough, your sample "bad-looking combination" link works fine, so I'm not sure what's going on.
Anyone else seeing similar problems? Might be worth force-reloading to make sure tmjsfuncs.js is a fresh copy.
I figured out what happened: TM colors should only be specified once, not separately for clinched and unclinched as other colors are.
-
Looking at the orange and purple implemented, they're close to existing colors, so I imagine those would be more for user customization or as alternates for the existing magenta and yellow.
That's a good point. Maybe they should both be darker versions to distinguish better from the existing magenta and yellow.
-
A comment by nezinscot in another thread about colorblindness reminded me of this discussion. While we already have the ability for users to specify QS parameters to replace the colors to their own liking, it's not especially easy to use and I bet almost no one does. I would like to add support for multiple, well thought out color schemes that could easily be selected by users via QS parameters and saved in cookies or by some other TBD mechanism. Of course, this requires some work on the web front end to support it, but also requires some effort to come up with a collection of good color schemes. Anyone interested in taking this on?
-
I don't think there's enough contrast between traveled and untraveled roads in Mapview, especially when zoomed out and the lines are skinny. There should be a way to turn the unhighlighted (actually translucently highlighted) roads off.
Also, I think radio buttons might be a quicker way to choose what's highlighted, rather than a pulldown box.
-
Both is fine for me. It took some time to figure out good color values back then.... See above. However, feel free to suggest better color values.
Edit: Topics merged.
-
I don't have a problem with the colors. It's just that the translucent lines, while useful sometimes, also obscure the underlying map to some extent, making it more difficult to read route numbers and place names. I'd like to be able to choose whether to see those at all.
-
I don't have a problem with the colors. It's just that the translucent lines, while useful sometimes, also obscure the underlying map to some extent, making it more difficult to read route numbers and place names. I'd like to be able to choose whether to see those at all.
I'd like to add the ability to show/hide either traveled or untraveled segments.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/771
-
I don't have a problem with the colors. It's just that the translucent lines, while useful sometimes, also obscure the underlying map to some extent, making it more difficult to read route numbers and place names. I'd like to be able to choose whether to see those at all.
I'd like to add the ability to show/hide either traveled or untraveled segments.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/771
I thought you already did? At least I can turn off, or on, the translucent lines for traveled sections when I go to any "political subdivision" (I traveled through).
-
I don't have a problem with the colors. It's just that the translucent lines, while useful sometimes, also obscure the underlying map to some extent, making it more difficult to read route numbers and place names. I'd like to be able to choose whether to see those at all.
I'd like to add the ability to show/hide either traveled or untraveled segments.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/771
Cross-posting from Github:
I don't like the idea. It would make it complicated.
I think that we already have everything we need except of a "Disable" option:
Highlight All, Highlight Traveled, Highlight Untraveled, Highlight None, Disable Highlighting
Either the traveled lines or the untraveled lines overlap route numbers. If you want to see them, we could just select Disable Highlighting. With just one option (one drop-down menu). Having more than one element to change, the settings would be awful.
I frequently change from "Highlight Traveled" to "Highlight Untraveled" when planning (or mapping) road trips, and I need "Highlight All" and "Highlight None" for hwy data maintenance. I need to quickly change. And yes, having an "Disable Highlighting" to remove (and reset again) all lines with just one click would be great!
-
My issue with the translucent highlighting is that if I'm trying to visualize a road trip within a region or my completion of the region itself from a wide enough perspective, it really doesn't matter whether the highlighting is on "travelled" or not, because I can barely tell the highlighted sections from the unhighlighted sections... I'm sure the translucent overlay when not highlighted is extremely useful from a highway maintenance perspective, but for a casual mapper such as myself who is interested in making visualizations of my personal travels, it's incredibly distracting to have even the unhighlighted (still translucent) lines on the map. I don't know if it's possible to add opacity settings to the unhighlighted sections, or how much computing power it takes, but I'd certainly be willing to optionally wait longer for a load if it gets me a better map view.
-
Good point! So, this could do the trick:
Highlight All, Highlight Traveled, Highlight Untraveled, Highlight None, Traveled Only, Untraveled Only, Disable All
-
Good point! So, this could do the trick:
Highlight All, Highlight Traveled, Highlight Untraveled, Highlight None, Traveled Only, Untraveled Only, Disable All
Yes, I think this is the one, and I think it should be a straightforward change. I hope to take a look soon unless someone wants to give it a try and submit a pull request before I have a chance.
-
Just bringing this one back into the conversation -- as someone who isn't doing the coding/leg work, I have no room to complain, but as I add more segments to my list file I still think being able to completely turn on/off the translucency of untraveled routes would be great for visualization purposes! Similar to what's below, but with my travels instead of I-80, obviously. :)
-
I'm new. I actually must have known this site existed at some point because I had a .list file on an old hard drive that I had one entry for, but either way. I'm just getting started. So I hope this doesn't come across as obnoxious; definitely not my intent.
But I am having a lot of trouble really getting a visual grasp on my travels from maps. The problem is that I don't feel like the distinction between logged and unlogged roads is prominent enough. Or, from another point of view, I'd like to see the ability to remove unlogged roads from maps.
Even when the excess information is removed and it's just a white background, I feel like it's only comprehensible when you're at a scale like below (roughly 100 miles east to west there).
I know you can change to just one color but I find that personally even harder to read.
I lack the technical skills to be of any use, so I know it sounds like I'm complaining without a solution. I'm truly not complaining. Just wondering if there's a technical or other reason for not being able to remove unlogged roads.
Thank you.
-
I think we discussed this under https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=427.msg32548#msg32548
https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/771
-
I'm always happy to hear feedback and suggestions.
I think what happens at wider views is that the waypoints where the drawn segments of untraveled routes overlap lose some their transparency (because those places are under 2 or more segments) making them look closer to the traveled segments. The opacity could be dialed down for such segments but that it not currently a user-configurable setting (by TM) and I'd want to get more user feedback about this before changing that number (currently 0.3). You can see what it would look like if opacity gets changed to 0.1 if you use the tmstage.teresco.org server, where I just changed it.
As far as implementing an option to leave off untraveled routes for Mapview, it's certainly possible. I (or someone else) would just have to find some time to make it happen.
-
I think we discussed this under https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=427.msg32548#msg32548
https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/771
Indeed. It looks like this has not happened yet but I think that solution is good. Hopefully it's straight forward.
-
I'd want to get more user feedback about this before changing that number (currently 0.3).
I was annoyed by that for years....
You can see what it would look like if opacity gets changed to 0.1 if you use the tmstage.teresco.org server, where I just changed it.
It's great! However, it's identical to the production server. Have you changed it too?
-
I changed it in the wrong place. Mapview on tmstage should now use a much more transparent look for the untraveled routes. Too transparent for me but I'd be interested to hear what others think.
-
I think that version is so transparent that the untraveled routes may as well not be there. But perhaps "traveled only" and "untraveled only" could be added to the drop-down?
-
I imagine some people will scream bloody murder at this, but to my taste, I'd rather not have the translucent "unhighlighted" lines at all. All we'd need is two checkboxes, for Traveled and Untraveled. Since checkboxes can be manipulated much more quickly than a pull-down, it would be really easy to momentary enable the other one if you need to see those lines too.
-
I imagine some people will scream bloody murder at this, but to my taste, I'd rather not have the translucent "unhighlighted" lines at all. All we'd need is two checkboxes, for Traveled and Untraveled. Since checkboxes can be manipulated much more quickly than a pull-down, it would be really easy to momentary enable the other one if you need to see those lines too.
This is where I am, too.
-
We need All and None for maintenance. I stick with the proposal adding Traveled Only and Untraveled only, and Disable All.
-
Mapview on tmstage should now use a much more transparent look for the untraveled routes. Too transparent for me
Way too transparent. Bad for maintenance purpose. I like how it looks on the production server. I'm sure that it's better now :D
-
I imagine some people will scream bloody murder at this, but to my taste, I'd rather not have the translucent "unhighlighted" lines at all. All we'd need is two checkboxes, for Traveled and Untraveled. Since checkboxes can be manipulated much more quickly than a pull-down, it would be really easy to momentary enable the other one if you need to see those lines too.
I will scream bloody murder because if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I can check what segments I don't have easily with the current setup. Having to check a bunch of boxes to see something isn't user friendly.
-
I like being able to see both clinched and unclinched segments at the same time and differentiate between them. I wouldn't want to lose that.
-
I wouldn't call two checkboxes as "a bunch". I don't object to the "unhighlighted" lines existing for other people, but I'd rather not use them, so I'd like a way to turn them off and just leave only the opaque "highlighted" lines, showing either driven, undriven, or all. But having that many choices means we're stuck with pull-down lists.
-
I'd want to get more user feedback about this before changing that number (currently 0.3).
I was annoyed by that for years....
You can see what it would look like if opacity gets changed to 0.1 if you use the tmstage.teresco.org server, where I just changed it.
It's great! However, it's identical to the production server. Have you changed it too?
I remember what annoyed me. Switch to "Color by concurrencies" and "Highlight None". The overlap of two blue lines at the intersecting wp is very dark. It sometimes looks like broken concurrency from lower zoom. See attached.
-
I'd want to get more user feedback about this before changing that number (currently 0.3).
I was annoyed by that for years....
You can see what it would look like if opacity gets changed to 0.1 if you use the tmstage.teresco.org server, where I just changed it.
It's great! However, it's identical to the production server. Have you changed it too?
I remember what annoyed me. Switch to "Color by concurrencies" and "Highlight None". The overlap of two blue lines at the intersecting wp is very dark. It sometimes looks like broken concurrency from lower zoom. See attached.
I have noticed that the blue lines tend to have less contrast between segments that are highlighted and those that aren't than the other colors do, especially when zoomed out. In fact, If I show my travels on usai to people who aren't roadgeeks, they'll assume that I've clinched the whole system because the contrast is low enough they can't tell the difference.
-
For what it’s worth, it’s possible at the moment for an average user like me to see unhighlighted untraveled sections and keep what I have travelled in view, if I’m willing to dig a little: I just go to Inspect > Sources > updateConnectionColors() and update the opacity variable in that function to “1*highlight” instead of the default “0.3 + 0.55*highlight”, and then it applies the new opacity variable once I toggle the highlight options dropdown. Of course, I’d also love to see a front end way to do this, since I have to reapply those changes every time I reload the page or change the region (and the site still loads ALL segments, even the unhighlighted ones, so I can’t really do something like get the entire USA in view and then change the opacity settings, since it’ll never load. It’d be great to find a way to not even load untraveled segments so I can see the full extent of my personal travels)
-
I have noticed that the blue lines tend to have less contrast between segments that are highlighted and those that aren't than the other colors do, especially when zoomed out. In fact, If I show my travels on usai to people who aren't roadgeeks, they'll assume that I've clinched the whole system because the contrast is low enough they can't tell the difference.
Yep, I think it's just an issue with TMblue. Maybe one can suggest a better setting?
https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/blob/master/lib/tmjsfuncs.js#L113
colorCodes[0] = { name: "TMblue", unclinched: "rgb(100,100,255)", clinched: "rgb(0,0,220)" };
And https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/581 is now implemented and on the main site.
For the colors= QS param, you can still specify a pair of CSS colors for clinched and unclinched (even the same one and rely on the opacity difference to indicate clinched vs. unclinched), but also now can specify a single TM predefined color (ones used in systems.csv, now with a "TM" prefix).
QS param for usai in NY with TMblue--> https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?rg=ny&colors=usai:rgb(100,100,255):rgb(0,0,220)
-
I think the unhighlighted salmon color is too light: (https://i.imgur.com/SZatADl.png) I'm staring at it and I can't see it.
-
I think the unhighlighted salmon color is too light
That's the current color: https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?rg=jpn&colors=jpnh:rgb(224,162,162):rgb(240,150,115) (https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?rg=jpn&colors=jpnh:rgb(224,162,162):rgb(240,150,115))
Feel free to change the rgb settings by editing the url (first = unclinched, second = clinched). Once you have good settings, you can suggest it for discussion here.
-
That's the current color: https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?rg=jpn&colors=jpnh:rgb(224,162,162):rgb(240,150,115) (https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?rg=jpn&colors=jpnh:rgb(224,162,162):rgb(240,150,115))
Feel free to change the rgb settings by editing the url (first = unclinched, second = clinched). Once you have good settings, you can suggest it for discussion here.
It looks like the first is the unhighlighted and the second is the highlighted.
Also, it appears to support rgba as well as rgb, but the unhighlighted alpha is still scaled down by the default value. At least this gives us a way of turning the unlighted ones off completely.
It would be even nicer if you could use #rrggbb or #rrggbbaa hex colors, since they're a lot more compact.
-
I think the unhighlighted salmon color is too light
That's the current color: https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?rg=jpn&colors=jpnh:rgb(224,162,162):rgb(240,150,115) (https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?rg=jpn&colors=jpnh:rgb(224,162,162):rgb(240,150,115))
Feel free to change the rgb settings by editing the url (first = unclinched, second = clinched). Once you have good settings, you can suggest it for discussion here.
Actually that color looks fine to me (TMlightsalmon), looks like jpnlex* were all set to TMblack. I'll just switch them all over? In the original photo, the color in question is the NW/SE rail line, which I don't think anyone even noticed.
-
ah, got it! Standard colors like "salmon" had bad contrast. Thus, we set up TM colors like "TMlightsalmon".
https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/blob/master/lib/tmjsfuncs.js#L113
-
Looks like it used a nonexistent color "TMblack". Changed in my branch.