The check I use for displaying “is there a sidewalk on a road” on maps is https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-vector-extract/blob/main/resources/process-sve01.lua#L1790 .

An example of a map that you can make with that is https://map.atownsend.org.uk/vector/index_svwd08.html#9.34/52.2054/-1.5605 - that only shows primary and secondary roads if you can walk on them. It wouldn’t be that difficult if you wanted to create a set of vector tiles in that schema for California.

@kumakyoo yes - that mostly makes sense, and assuming that leisure is an area feature and highway a linear one unless there’s an explicit area tag is certainly an approach, but you will find some values for which this isn’t true - highway=pedestrian is one example, most closed highway=pedestrian ways without an area tag are actually areas.

and reloading the database on the OSMF servers.

When I make a request to an OSMF vector tile it’s to something with a URL like https://vector.openstreetmap.org/shortbread_v1/9/252/166.mvt .

How is the reload process done - is it just a reload of the database from which those .mvt files are generated, or a regeneration of all .mvt files as well?

I ended up creating a bunch of scripts to manage the loading and unloading of vector tiles and map styles, including the icons and sprites.

That meant that when I created a new test style I only needed to create one file - the style .json and run one command with a bunch of parameters to deploy it.

However, the “elephant in the room” is still the large, uncommentable .json file - having “something sane from which that is generated” would clearly be much better.. I’ve used layer ids that indicate sources layer and min/maxzoom, but styles are still a bit of a handful to edit.

I notice you also have “area” information in there too - How do you cope with things like man_made=pier which (if linear) will not an area feature but (if closed) will be?

Also - what about things like leisure=track and highway=raceway which can be either areas or linear, depending on whether an area=no or area=yes tag is present (and can be unclear without, although being a multipolygon relation nudges towards area)?

If it helps, the lua code that I use to suppress unsigned routes is currently at https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L1100 (“Check for signage - remove unsigned networks”).

Interesting that you mention the Cape Wrath Trail. It is part of a “relation of relations” - osm.org/relation/9327615 . That’s type=superroute - there are about 4000 of those, and also some type=super-relation**. Just this morning I included it in the list to process, so that here it just shows as “Cape Wrath Trail”.

It’s not a national trail, not adopted by any official body.

From reading the wikipedia article it sounds like it has a similar status to “Wainwright’s Coast to Coast Walk” did in England before it was “adopted” by National Trails. There was some signage, but it was unofficial and often hit and miss. Generally speaking OSM doesn’t have “book only routes” (i.e. if they’re not signed on the ground they shouldn’t really be there) but there are exceptions that “everyone knows” (like the Coast to Coast Walk was). Whether it should be there or not is a decision for the local community. My maps will omit names for routes that are tagged as being unsigned, but I hadn’t previously considered description=unmarked, which is how this one is tagged.

As a renderer it gets tricky to work out how frequently to put in route names that work for everything.

It’s not just Mapnik - if anything the problem seems to be worse in Maplibre (for reasons that I haven’t really been able to work out yet). For now on vector maps, I’ve just made the route name text smaller that other text, in addition the the name consolidation described in this diary entry.

And then the other day I caught a mapper adding the trail name to multiple paths and tracks which already had a suitable relation

That’s a perennial problem, probably because some general purpose renderers (like OSM Carto) don’t show hiking routes at all.

** it’s confusing - when doing relation checks on these I just look at the geometry. The lack of consistency makes it difficult for iD.

I’ve no idea what you’re looking for in this list, but potentially you might want to look at a few other values. this list is a list of “things you might be able to walk on”. Things like sidewalk:left might get set by things like StreetComplete, as it asks people what things are like.

?

Essentially, the process is something like:

1. Identify data that is available with a suitable licence
2. Follow the process in the wiki
3. Once you’ve done all that, and people are happy that both the qualityand licence of the data is suitable, begin combining it with what is already in OSM.

If you’d like to look at a previous example, the NaPTAN data is probably a good place to start.

However, a challenge for you might be that I suspect that much of the “low hanging fruit” has already gone. Things that might be suitable include CRoW Act land (but in that case a data source needs to be found, and data licence and data quality checked, and the conflation will be a challenge due to previous armchair heathland mapping in OSM), and possibly others.

Especially from the top deck!

Perhaps this web page might help?

thank you for trying to talk to me without blocking me straight away.

For the avoidance of doubt - I didn’t last time either! It was a message that you had to read before continuing to edit. Once you’d read that message you were free to continue editing.

The OSM website uses the same mechanism for both, and they appear in the same place. If you think that should be changed, then the usual “patches welcome” comment applies (all these systems are developed and maintained by volunteers).

When sending a “please don’t say things like that” message we have a number of choices. Firstly, private or public: I tend to think that most people are basically decent and “sunlight is the best disinfectant” here so will tend to use public options unless there are mitigating circumstances.

Next, any message can go on a note or changeset (if that is relevant) or via a “message you have to read before anything else”. I chose the latter here partly because do that with notes can be a bit problematic - they get closed and sometimes hidden for content reasons. Writing a public message and then later hiding that message would somewhat defeat the object.

We’re always open to suggestions about how best to persuade people to behave in a respectful way to everyone else. What do you think would have worked in your case?

Best Regards, Andy

What you wrote on osm.org/note/2805298 and osm.org/note/3521901 was not OK. OpenStreetMap is a shared project and we all need to work together. Your comments on those notes suggest that you aren’t willing to do that.

My suggestion on osm.org/user_blocks/17037 (“Next time, you think about commenting like this, perhaps wait a bit and sit down and have a nice cup of tea first?”)** still applies I think?

With our current solution one volunteer can add up to 90 new trees per hour, which is a good result

Please - think about quality rather than quantity!

but they aren’t really mobile friendly

Perhaps have another look? You’ve said that about apps that are explicilty mobile apps.

Just checking that you’ve read and are following osm.wiki/Import/Guidelines …

Erm - as well as the content, you might want to check the formatting of what you have posted here. Diary entries are parsed with “Kramdown, which is a markdown-like processing. You can re-edit it and swap between “edit” and “preview” to make sure that it looks OK.

Some of the discussion history from even earlier is also worth a read - for example here and here.

@RobJN I agree that it absolutely makes sense to add tags like that. It’s also true that “footway” in England and Wales is used on a wide variety of “ways you can walk from A to B” (see osm.org/way/839038651/history , the discussion on osm.org/changeset/135293564 and links from there for discussion about “difficult” footpaths). It’s not been used for things like the “scuba path” though, and the incident where cyclists were told they could cycle along footpaths in royal parks wouldn’t have happened had footway been used instead of path.

Making the label text smaller means that it looks a bit less rubbish most of the time. Water names are now dependent on way area (but there’s more to do with other features there).