Cool work! There is a question, what is the proper way to tag rivers going through waterbodies. With name tag or without, with some addidtional tag or without. There are several schols of thougt there… Bwt, Lithuanian basins: https://openmap.lt/baseinai.html And if you look at our river map https://upes.openmap.lt, rivers through waterbodies are symbolised with dashes (because this is river routing map)

This is what I’m pointing out: check out if mikrosoft has extracted building geometry from a good imagery (they have a record of not using/providing a good imagery) - otherwise adjust it before importing or simply do not import it at all.

Yes, Maxar is also misaligned.

In Lithuania we provide (transform/proxy) official government ortoimagery which is precisely aligned (used by all government institutions as well as professional surveyors). Therefore we can surely trust it :-)

Oh, that’s how newsly works. Yes indeed, newsly did look strange as had a number of very different and very specific topics. Was brought up to me by google alert.

Thank you, I’ve changed the link.

Well, my whole point is that there ARE people (not only me) who would LOVE to add cartography and other knowledge/solutions to OSM (and have already tried to do that), but we CANNOT do that because of the barriers described above.

Could you be more specific as what should I and others have to understand about vector tiles? Given our sandbox https://topo.openmap.lt with all code for this openly on github and a pile of ideas on future improvements. What steps/knowledge of the process do you think are we missing?

And if that is too much to expect - because of programming knowhow (Lua, SQL) - then I would be happy with a contribution on a scientific map generalization workshop or an ICC paper :-).

Sorry, I did not get that. Are you suggesting to write a paper to ICC, or should I (and others) add credit to OSM in our ICC papers/presentations? What’s the deal? :-)

P.S. Writing code is always the least of the problem. Lack of ideas/knowledge/algorithms is a problem.

Again, I’m talking about data SCHEMA and the strategy and rules for SCHEMA, not data. Declaration of schema being random because “world is random” is simply trying to declare a bug as a feature - excuse to do nothing. Creating SCHEMA rules would not mean prohibition of adding new tags or changing existing ones, it should control how/when/which existing tags are changed, where new tags are placed in the topological hierarchy (say landuse=education or landuse=residential+residential=education or landcover=education or whatever)

Exactly. And that’s because OSM has a key-value schema, which you typically want to convert it into a tabular (GIS) form.

This is a technical and irrelevant detail. These two types of representation can coexist and have no influence. You would have to convert osm key-value schema to a usable tabular OR key-value schema to be used professionally.

Neither tabular nor key-value is a “GIS form”. Both can be used for GIS (f.e. PostGIS).

This seems to be a good place to engage yourself. And that what I meant when I said that I’d wish NMA and cartographers could do more.

It is impossible to build something on top of random, unstable schema which lacks any direction, which can and is changing to worse. If we have ETL between OSM data and cartography, then it is no longer OSM and OSM can then easily be replaced with other data with more stable and logical data schema. And if we remove emotions and attachments there would be no practical sense to use OSM for base data (landuse, forests, building, places etc.).

OSM is a “scaleless” database, not a “cartographic” database. Automated generalization like you are looking for does not belong in OSM database. That is something downstream. When I say post-pocessing, I mean that OSM data must always be (post-)processed: first to tabular GIS data, then to further purposes like a (generalized) base map.

Well, that is what I am saying from the very beginning - OSM is currently limited to JUST DATA with no QA for schema.