Author: Alandizo
[Added to the original trac issue at 8.23pm, Monday, 13th December 2010]

I'd like to add two aspects to this topic:

1. Currently, there is no consistent way of displaying landuse-areas that are overlapping, i.e. an area landuse=military may overlap an area landus=forest and vice-versa, depending on what area is bigger. However, it is often - if not always - the case, that an area landuse=military is also used as a forest, grassland or whatever else might be possible. A rule needs to be found how these overlapping areas are handled.

2. The rendering of red hachures is useful, if such an area is indeed an area the person viewing the map should keep of. However, this is not always the case, as there are roads crossing landuse=military areas that are open for public. Hachures would then counteract the usage of the map.

That said, I suggest rendering the boundaries of landuse=military areas with a thick border in a reddish shade. This would clearly indicate that a restricted area begins without taking away the possibility of mapping and rendering the contents of such an
area.

Author: brogo
[Added to the original trac issue at 2.25pm, Monday, 17th January 2011]

is now applied in the new Mapnik-style

Author: Alandizo
[Added to the original trac issue at 3.31pm, Sunday, 30th January 2011]

Noticing the recent changes reagarding areas tagged with landuse=military, I appreciate the awareness that there was/is a need for action. While the previous output style did not emphasize the importance of these area enough, the current solution is a bit "too much". Especially the dominant hachures make the use of the map impossible at some zoom levels.

One important thing to know is that military areas CAN still be open to the public. As an example hiking tracks pass through such areas or some streets are open to the public for passing through purposes. The current rendering style makes using OSM very difficult in such cases.

Therefore, I highly recommend refraining from the usage of hachures unless the areas are marked as not publicly accessible. Instead, as a general rule, military areas should be marked with a dominant border ONLY.

Author: Ldp
[Added to the original trac issue at 4.05pm, Sunday, 30th January 2011]

There were 3 versions of the hatching in a short period. The first was only the hatching, pinkish. The second was a stronger red, but that was a bit too much. The current iteration is a weaker hatching with a light background. You may still be talking about the strong red version? Do you have an example link?

If you look carefully, you'll notice that roads are drawn over the military hatching. If they have no access restriction, that will be easy to see. I suppose that's more difficult for the track appearance.

Author: Alandizo
[Added to the original trac issue at 10.06pm, Friday, 18th February 2011]

Replying to [comment:4 Ldp]:

There were 3 versions of the hatching in a short period. The first was only the hatching, pinkish. The second was a stronger red, but that was a bit too much. The current iteration is a weaker hatching with a light background. You may still be talking about the strong red version? Do you have an example link?

I think as of right now the hatches are distractioing, for example:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.4367034435272&lon=9.77916240692139&zoom=15
This is a military area that is open to public. It is officially military and maintained by the military, but on weekends there's 100+ people walking with 100+ dogs, whic his absolutely legal. The way the area is displayed doesn't help, for examaple finding geocaches there.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.9137933254242&lon=10.1892828941345&zoom=14
This is a military airfield, but it's shared with civilians who have their private planes there, a flight club for whoever want's to join is also located there. The way the hachures are displayed makes use of the map very strenious.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.0247724056244&lon=10.0918221473694&zoom=15
This area is also officially part of a military area, and you do see clear signs indicating this fact when you walk those tracks. But next to those signs there are nice info boards explaining the hiking tracks around the lakes and what plants and trees you see there, because it is wanted that people walk there and find out about the nature surrounding them. There is also lots of hunters, who are officially allowed in this area, even off-track. For them - and I know some of them in person - this rendering-change was a huge draw-back.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.6998310089111&lon=11.8243789672852&zoom=12
I don't personally know this area, but someone obviously put lots of work into it. Every bush and track is traced. With the hashures, it's not usable anymore. Is there some sort of policy that states Mapnik should NOT be usable by military forces or something?