Distinguishing labels for different features

[imagico]

With the recent changes in labeling a lot of different kinds of labels now all use the same typefaces and variable sizes depending on the size of the feature making the label color (see also #1016) the only distinguishing element and as a result attributing the various labels to the different features can be difficult.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=10/80.1758/32.3259
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=10/61.7039/7.0299
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/-50.2610/-73.0103

At least the non-physical features like nature reserves should use a different typeface than the physical features like islands, lakes etc.

What adds to the confusion is that due to the way label priorities are set now labels frequently appear and disappear again when you zoom in:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=7/80.017/32.410
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=10/-53.1035/73.5164

A more consistent prioritization - giving labels that appear early a generally higher priority than those that appear later - would help here.

[Tomasz-W]

Is anybody still interested in it? Is it still an issue? If not, I think this ticket should be closed.

[imagico]

The problems mentioned still exist - even if not all examples still work exactly as they did originally.

Note apart from the main problem (distinguishing physical and non-physical features) i also mentioned the problem of non-consistent prioritization and the resulting effect of labels appearing and disappearing again seemingly at random as you zoom in. This is a much broader problem (which also increases in significance with every new type of labeled feature added).

[sommerluk]

I propose to close this issue.

For labels appearing and disappearing between zoom levels, we have yet tickets.

For using different typefaces, I do not see much room. Using Noto Serif as an alternative was rejected in a different context in #2692, and we have currently a consistent styling across languages with Noto which works well and which we should not sacrifice by introducing new fonts which will probably have less coverage.

[imagico]

I might have been a bit unclear with the use of the term typeface. What i meant was to use label designs that are clearly distinguishable as labels of different categories of features beyond the current distinction by color.

That can be done by using different typefaces but also by other means. #4607 for example suggests something like that for runways and taxiways.

In my eyes this issue would still be important to address. Or in other words: If we decide not to address this and continue to render large and prominent labels for both physical and non-physical features in a unified styling, i would have difficulties seeing the point in making other, much less significant distinctions through differences in label design (like in #4607).

And yes, this issue is now exclusively about the distinction in label design, not about prioritization (which is covered by #3880).

[sommerluk]

Okay. So this is not about the typeface, but about its styling.

The mentioned #4607 plays with different colors for the labels, and with different halo colors.

During the last years, for a considerable number of scripts, Noto got support for much more weights than just regular and bold: Sometimes, a full range is available: thin, extralight, light, regular, medium, semibold, bold, extrabold, black. But at least semibold is available for a considerable number of scripts now.

Also, for some more scripts, different widths became available, like extracondensed or condensed.

So this could play with the following parameters:

• Label color
• Label halo color
• Typeface weights like semibold
• Typeface width like condensed