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).

Re prow_ref, both maps should have that - raster and vector. There are a couple of obvious differences though:

• The vector text is mostly larger and a bit more uniform in size.
• The vector text sometimes appears only at vector zoom 17, which is probably due to label clash issues, and needs investigating.
• The label text sometimes looks rubbish which I believe I have seen logged somewhere, but it might also be something that I can work around.

@ابوبندر العصم I’ve answered one of your previous numerous questions at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/how-to-install-garmin-maps-in-a-local-language-such-as-arabic/120517/3 .

Hello,

I’m guessing that you’re complaining that some software on your mobile phone is displaying a location that is not correct.

That’s nothing to do with OpenStreetMap; you will have to complain to whoever makes that phone software.

Today, near Bor osm.org/#map=17/6.178444/31.578194 , another masterpiece: a lot of triangular (one 2600 sqm trapezoidal) buildings, and 3 tourism=camp_site

To be clear, this wasn’t created today. From looking at an example edit osm.org/way/1003640656 , the changeset was 3 years ago: osm.org/changeset/114107972 . The mapper made 19 edits in 2021, and contributed no further to OSM. The HOT project is https://tasks.hotosm.org/projects/11218 and the organiser of that project is osm.org/user/ngumenawesamson . They are still active in OSM, and I have commented on a recent changeset of theirs suggesting that they may wish to read this diary entry.

What we don’t know is who ran the mapathon (or whatever) that prompted the changeset that created the triangular buildings (or if there even was anyone supervising it). We do however know two things:

• that the person who created the HOT task hasn’t bothered to look at the quality of the work done in the name of that HOT task, or has looked and hasn’t bothered to tidy it up.

• that there aren’t enough people looking at “changesets by new users” in this part of the world. The problem changeset here even had review_requested=yes (automatically set by iD, I guess), and no-one has noticed it for 3 years.

In this particular example it’s probably too late to contact the original mapper. It’s not too late to tidy up the problem data (now there’s a diary entry pointing at it, I’m sure someone will de-trangularise the buildings). However, what would be really useful would be to have a look for much more recent review_requested=yes changes, and offer helpful advice (after an initial “hello and welcome” message).

Best Regards,

Andy

Hi tyr_asd,

What are your thoughts about resolving the issues that make iD basically unsuitable to edit relations at all in OSM? Most of the edits that you can see at osm.org/user/SomeoneElse2/history are fixing issues that were intrduced by mappers using iD (comments such as “filled in gap in” etc.). I’ve raised a number of these at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+author%3ASomeoneElseOSM+relation (and other people have created “relation” issues too). The most egregious problem is simply this:

iD does not display the object IDs of relations

It’s not possible to distinguish from membership of a “relation of ways” from a higher level “relation of relations”, leading to errors that need to be fixed such as at e.g. osm.org/changeset/155217400 . iD also does not display other relevant details of relations (see the iD issue list) but the lack of display of the object ID literally makes it impossible for a user to check that they are adding something to the correct relation.

Best Regards,

Andy