Adding rendering for craft

[map-per]

Fixes #1697

Changes proposed in this pull request:

• rendering for craft

For craft I picked a color that is between office and shop. Most crafts are rendered as a generic dot to avoid cluttering due to too many icons. For more shop like craft with much customer contact like shoemaker, tailor and dressmaker I used icons.

The icons were taken form #3126.
This change requires a database reload.

Test rendering with links to the example places:

(before left, after right)



(https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3888292897)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3888292897

(https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3888292897)

Potential problems

• rendering the crafts shoemaker, tailor, and dressmaker and their shop equivalents shoe_repair and tailor too different should be avoided

[imagico]

Thanks for the pull request.

This is not a review but a few preliminary remarks:

• past discussion indicated that there is no consensus on the question of adding support for features tagged with craft=*. This is partly due to Too many icons #3635, partly due to concerns about an unclear delineation between craft=* and other tags (like if a place where clothing is made and sold is shop=clothes, shop=tailor, craft=tailor or man_made=works+product=clothes - similar for other crafts) and partly due to the limited relevance of these features per se for the map user.
• i would advise against introducing another partial catch-all. As mentioned already in the previous point - what a craft=* is is fairly ill-defined and a tag craft=foo does not transport much information without there being consensus about the meaning of the specific tag among mappers.
• i would advise against introducing a new symbol color based on the principle of finding a free spot in color space. The consensus view seems to be that moving away from a colors-of-the-rainbow palette for roads was a very good idea much improving the overall clarity of color semantics in the style. Going a similar route for point symbols would be advisable IMO. Also keep in mind that your color choice is not in any way intuitively understandable to indicate a craft feature. Hence it would be essential for the symbol shape to transport the nature of the feature. Reusing symbols used in different color elsewhere and relying on the color to make the difference clear would clash with our goal to be intuitively understandable for map users. And if the symbol form already transports the specific classification of the feature it is doubtful that introducing a new color for the broader and fairly ill-defined classification as a craft would be of benefit.

[map-per]

Thanks for the remarks, you convinced me that a catch all is not a good idea.

What are your thoughts to rendering some crafts where the rooms are often used office like and most of the customer contact heapens on the construction site like office? (I would put carpenter, electrician, plumber, havac, window_construction, painter, roofer, and builder into this category)

[imagico]

I think our decisions with displaying POIs should be considering the usefulness of the feature in question for the map user. For an office (in the wider sense) with no customer interaction of any kind this amounts to essentially displaying categorized business addresses rather than POIs in the true sense of the word.

I would think positively about displaying crafts that provide public services of some kind (in principle, subject to the technical and cartographic constraints discussed) but less so for such with no such interaction. If a carpenter, electrician, painter etc. invites walk-in customers for sales talks and ordering their services that would qualify. Unfortunately tagging practice in OSM does not seem to make such a distinction.

[dch0ph]

I suspect that nearly all the places that mappers would add under craft would be open to the public (and hence useful for the map user), since there would be an sign advertising the business. In contrast, businesses operating out of a private address (e.g. self-employed individual plumbers etc.) shouldn't be mapped. Arguably Google Maps is becoming increasingly less useful as it is getting filled with such personal business "spam"!

The particular problem with craft= and club= (e.g. club=social 'Working Men's Clubs') is that the name tag is overridden by address information, so what appears is addr:housenumber, with no indication that there is a "public-facing" entity behind the address.

How about adjusting the addressing mechanism to just giving the name in bold (no colour needed), overriding addr:housename/number? The business name is then seen and the reader has a visual sign that this is not simply a private building address. The business name is generally sufficient to indicate the nature of the business e.g. Bob's Electricals, and so be useful to the map user without requiring a specialised icon. OK, collisions will occur with long names at low zooms, but at least that is better than showing e.g. a housenumber.

Frankly you could take the same line for office=, since we're never going to have POI icons for 90+% of office types.

[gdabski]

I second @dch0ph's comment on the usage of craft and am surprised by the opinion the tagging practice doesn't take into account the distinction between walk-in businesses and other ones which merely based off a private property somewhere.

I'm rather skeptical though about the proposal to render these places by printing the business name without a symbol or even bullet. The floating house numbers coming from unrendered craft or club POIs are surely a problem, but it's a separate one.