Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

On Nov 9, 2020, at 6:22 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Yes, long, but not (yet!) tedious, at least to me! :-), as I both agree, & > disagree, with some of the points raised. > > Looking forward to the result of the discussions you both may have. I appreciate that, Graeme. As Anders gets back

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 06:06, stevea wrote: > let's take that off-list. Those would be appropriate to discuss ON list, > it's true, and maybe you publish the RESULTS of our off-list discussion > here after we've emailed each other. But I feel we have spent a great deal > of time (and passion!)

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Am Mo., 9. Nov. 2020 um 13:15 Uhr schrieb Anders Torger : > A question, is this database only intended for very large polygons, or > also rather small? > at the moment, the polygons are all rather small, but the intention is to get regions of all sizes, where they exist. As long as it is not so

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

sorry, of course I meant "rather large", in the first sentence ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 20:06, stevea wrote: > > For example, you complain that natural=peninsula doesn't render. So? > That's not a problem with OSM, it is you assuming that a particular > renderer is going to display the semiotics you believe it should, when it > likely does not (exactly as you

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

On Nov 9, 2020, at 12:59 AM, Anders Torger wrote: > Hello Steve, I admire your passion. Thank you, that is a word both used about me in this project by others and one I use myself. Most apt; some of us in OSM are almost "rabidly" passionate! > This is my perspective: there are many projects

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

A question, is this database only intended for very large polygons, or also rather small? From my mapping perspective here in Sweden fuzzy polygons exist down to say ~1 km size (generally speaking names of hills, valleys, peninsulas etc). In fact the most I run into is in the 2 - 10 km size.

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Le 9 novembre 2020 10:08:42 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : >Am Mo., 9. Nov. 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < >tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > >> In short: technically CC0 may be used, but it would be confusing as ODBL >> would still >> apply anyway. >> >> See

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Am Mo., 9. Nov. 2020 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > In short: technically CC0 may be used, but it would be confusing as ODBL > would still > apply anyway. > > See https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#CC0 > > "CC0

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Hello Steve, I admire your passion. This is my perspective: there are many projects to contribute to, I have multiple interests, I have a limited amount of hours to contribute. I have worked in many high risk ventures, and seen at least 10 years of my work life's production has just

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 8, 2020, 17:44 by jayands...@gmail.com: >>> And there should be several specialized layers: general car navigation map, >>> sport map for hiking/cycling/skiing, transportation. All of that would be >>> possible with vector tiles which are less computationally demanding to >>> create.

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Warning: I am not a lawyer In short: technically CC0 may be used, but it would be confusing as ODBL would still apply anyway. See https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#CC0 "CC0 licenced material is in general compatible, however the license only extends to material

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 8, 2020, 14:00 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 2020-11-08, sk, 09:46 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > >> (and it is from person who put a lot of effort into tagging improvements, >> wikifiddling, >> deprecating some unwanted values, deduplication and validator-related work >> and has >>

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Thank you for the explanation Joseph Isenberg. Now I can see why that's so hard to implement. Also, could someone please add descriptions/organize the projects listed in the Wiki page for Vector Tiles? As a relative newcomer to the OSM development space, it seems that implementing vector tiles

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

https://www.freemap.sk/?map=14/48.930467/19.094570=X This is a nice topographical map, but it isn't serving client-side vector tiles. The tiles are jpegs, you can see jpg compression artifacts when zooming in. Perhaps vector tiles are used on the server side, I haven't looked into all of the

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Oops, "dearth" of data, not "death." ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

On Nov 8, 2020, at 7:58 AM, Anders Torger wrote: > I believe the processes available are limited in terms of fixing structural > problems. You say you have long experience in open projects, that is a fantastic launchpad from which to join OSM and improve it, even criticize it. I read that

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

2020-11-08, sk, 19:54 Joseph Eisenberg rašė: > The reason is that at mid zoom levels there is far too much data > in the database for it all to be made available in a vector tile > format so that the map is fully customizable. Unless we will do a real generalisation which would mean we will

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > you are not going to get a custom rendering from one set of vector tiles. Sure you are. You're not going to get every possible custom rendering from a single set of performant vector tiles, granted, but half of Mapbox's entire business model is custom rendering from

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Re: "Vector tiles could allow for instant client-side switching of map styles, the ability to customize the base layer, and allow users to make custom maps themselves" This is often claimed as a benefit of client-side vector tiles, but in practice it is not possible. The reason is that at mid

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

sent from a phone > On 8. Nov 2020, at 12:23, Allroads wrote: > > Toponym key > > Used at a import. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/3dShapes/Landuse_import > Translation: > Toponyms are used to still be able to apply a name = * to a large area, even > if this has been divided into

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

And there should be several specialized layers: general car navigation map, > sport map for hiking/cycling/skiing, transportation. All of that would be > possible with vector tiles which are less computationally demanding to > create. We already have multiple map styles. What they mean is that

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Thanks for your long and thoughtful reply. I'll try to not make it even longer :-). While I have only contributed since 2018, I've followed the project for much longer (that's why I though I had contributed for longer until I checked my log), so I've seen how the maps have looked and

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

From a tool point of view (JOSM etc), multiple databases could be made to be experienced exactly the same as different layers, so I guess it doesn't matter that much. With layers you are supposed to be able to turn them on and off at will in your editor and choose which you see in an easy

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

> 6 nov. 2020 kl. 19:31 skrev Anders Torger : > > Hello everyone, newcomer here! > Only marginally related to the discussion, but: For Sweden, you may want to look at the rendering at http://lab3.turepalsson.se/map/ (the generated PDF:s, not the tiles;

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Warning: lengthy reply to an already-lengthy thread. On Nov 8, 2020, at 3:26 AM, Anders Torger wrote: > Regarding a board that makes strategic decisions. > > The current concensus model with huge community has lead to that it's very > easy to block an idea, and very hard to get it accepted

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

2020-11-08, sk, 09:46 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > (and it is from person who put a lot of effort into tagging improvements, > wikifiddling, > deprecating some unwanted values, deduplication and validator-related work > and has > some experience from data consumer side) That is a

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

2020-11-08, sk, 12:31 Anders Torger rašė: > To me it seems like an odd "political" design decision to have a > separate database though. Why just not arrange the database in layers, > and this could be a separate layer? From a technical perspective I > suppose it wouldn't have to be layers as

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Maybe I'm wrong, but can I use OSM tiles to help tracing a 'Blue Valley' polygon, simplify or copy a multipolygon 'Martin' s wood' or whatever and declare it cc0? Yves Le 8 novembre 2020 11:08:57 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > > >sent from a phone > >> On 8. Nov 2020, at 10:08,

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Regarding a board that makes strategic decisions. The current concensus model with huge community has lead to that it's very easy to block an idea, and very hard to get it accepted and realized. A good idea is often blocked just because the first suggested solution may not be the best. It's

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Toponym key Used at a import. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/3dShapes/Landuse_import Translation: Toponyms are used to still be able to apply a name = * to a large area, even if this has been divided into tens to hundreds of small pieces due to the import. The existing AND polygons with a

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Beautiful name label rendering! Regarding separate database, I think it's a good idea if that is the only way forward. Something needs to happen. Being able to fulfill basic cartography needs are not "new" ideas, I really believe that it should be a priority for a database used for generating

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

sent from a phone > On 8. Nov 2020, at 10:08, Yves wrote: > > * CC0 doesn't allow to derive data from OSM it does. The whole point (for me) to start this was to provide data that can be combined with OpenStreetMap. What would be your suggestion for a licence? I would be willing to double

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Good initiative Martin, at first sight I'll make two comments : * CC0 doesn't allow to derive data from OSM * as geometries are fuzzy in nature, there should be a way to accept several geometries for a same entity, be it only to avoid long discussions on boundaries Yves Le 8 novembre 2020

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

sent from a phone > On 8. Nov 2020, at 09:24, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > I really like an idea of separate database/layer for such fuzzy objects. I have started a project to collect such fuzzy objects. Data is stored in a git repo in Geojson representation. Pull requests

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

I really like an idea of separate database/layer for such fuzzy objects. Especially as there are multiple competing ideas for when specific object ends and even how many continents/oceans we have. Nov 8, 2020, 06:51 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > If we're talking about fuzzy features (which do

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 8, 2020, 05:31 by mach...@gmail.com: > I absolutely agree with Seth, OSM should switch to vector tiles ASAP. > Note that OSM would not switch to vector tiles. At most one more rendering would switch to vector tiles. For OSM Carto see

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

2020-11-08, sk, 00:00 Anders Torger rašė: > Maybe this is self-evident to anyone that knows more about this than I > do, but I have to ask, are you saying that when we have to implement > generalization to be able to serve vector tiles, it's also natural to > include generalization of names?

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

I absolutely agree with Seth, OSM should switch to vector tiles ASAP. And there should be several specialized layers: general car navigation map, sport map for hiking/cycling/skiing, transportation. All of that would be possible with vector tiles which are less computationally demanding to create.

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

I'm don't know that much cartography terms and techniques, I only know what I know from using maps. I have noted though that traditional maps simplify the geographic shapes depending on scale. Sometimes in interesting ways, instead of removing small islands they are sometimes drawn bigger

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

On Nov 7, 2020, at 9:14 AM, Anders Torger wrote: > Hello Steve, > thanks for that wonderful and inspiring post! I'll surely think about > doing-what-can-be-done-with-the-current-tools-at-hand, and think about that > the work can be built upon by others in the future. Most inspiring! You are

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

One more thing to consider: generalisation is one of the most important things for cartography, but it is also extremely important for vector tiles. 2-3 years ago we've played with government data and it produced huge (up to 4MB) vector tiles (pbf) for middle scales (zoom 8-12). Browsers

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Hello Tomas, I just need to comment specifically on your https://topo.openmap.lt -- I'm very impressed! (I had to run it in Chrome, it didn't render properly in my Firefox, but this vector stuff is new tech and Linux Firefox seems to have some issues with that.) /Anders On 2020-11-07

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Yes, maps are definitely primary way how OSM data is used. I just wanted to note that it is not only way how it is used. Nov 7, 2020, 19:42 by and...@torger.se: > > Yes good point. Actually, I don't even know if cartography makes the top ten > list of how OSM data is used. Does it? > > > For

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Yes good point. Actually, I don't even know if cartography makes the top ten list of how OSM data is used. Does it? For me personally cartography is *the* thing, and I guess I am guilty for arguing from my own perspective. Sure I use basic road routing capabilities too that stem from the data,

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Sorry for replying to myself again, but I realized the link I shared was not a true example, although the maps I linked to are built to look similar to vector data they are delivered as png tiles, and least on my computer (some services switch automatically between pixel/vector). This link

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Thanks for those valuable points. I'm a layman, watching at OSM form the outside as a casual mapper and user. You're an expert on the inside. My perspective is thus limited, and also limited is the understanding of technical and infrastructure challenges. Regarding of comparing to

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Hello Steve, thanks for that wonderful and inspiring post! I'll surely think about doing-what-can-be-done-with-the-current-tools-at-hand, and think about that the work can be built upon by others in the future. Most inspiring! And I'll also clarify, I don't expect some Swiss cartographic

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

A move to prioritize cartography is probably not easy and there are lots of challenges. But I think it can be much better than it is today. I'm not too surprised that people in general would prefer google map with less information. The thing with cartography designed for paper is that it's

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 7, 2020, 16:41 by and...@torger.se: > And in the end it's about the resulting map. > Not only, OSM data is also used in other ways. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Probably the database should be organized in layers. The more information there is, the messier it becomes to have everything visible at once. With JOSM you can sort of simulate layers with filters on tags (I use that feature all the time), so I'm not sure if it actually needs to be layers in

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

I actually just found that article about OSM’s problems. One of the major topics mentioned, the fact that OSM acts as a database and not a map, and that this acts as a hinderance to the expansion and development of the project, is very true. As a result, I’ve came to think that implementing

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

I wanted to quickly comment on two things where a misleading narrative seems to be represented in the discussion here so far. The first one is the idea that OSM community cartography is being held back by the lack of computing power. It is not. The resources that would be required to run

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

2020-11-07, št, 14:37 Jeremy Harris rašė: > Alternatively, could the rendering job be done by the client needing the > out-of-date tile, and resubmitted to the server? As Mateusz has pointed out, this has already existed, but one of the reasons it was discontinued (along with the lack of

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 7, 2020, 13:33 by j...@wizmail.org: > On 07/11/2020 11:13, Walker Bradley wrote: > >> Computing power seems to be a constraint struggle without greater >> fundraising capacity, so could there be some work done on the rendering >> process? Could we do a specific and targeted fundraising

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

On 07/11/2020 11:13, Walker Bradley wrote: Computing power seems to be a constraint struggle without greater fundraising capacity, so could there be some work done on the rendering process? Could we do a specific and targeted fundraising effort to improve the renderer to make as much use of

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

On Nov 6, 2020, at 1:51 PM, Anders Torger wrote: > I'd love to help out if the workload and chance of success was reasonable, > but I'm a bit wary about the tagging proposal process. Most of my mapping > contributions is simple things like correcting and adding roads so all the > various

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Le 7 novembre 2020 12:47:45 GMT+01:00, Tomas Straupis a écrit : > Fuzzy features (like >continents, mountain ranges, bays etc. should probably be moved to a >separate database). > I often thought an 'Openlabelmap' database containing geometries to help with the labeling of such features could

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Hi, On 11/6/20 19:31, Anders Torger wrote: > ** Tagging bays and straits as areas work great, as the renderer gets > and idea how prominent it is and it can make proper text sizing and they > can be seen even if zoomed out if the area is large. Lots of our lakes, > even quite small ones have

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

2020-11-07, št, 13:24 Anders Torger rašė: > However, and this is a big however, I think that the face of > openstreetmap really need to be a cartographic sound map. During personal meetings as well as during different presentations in conferences I've been showing people two maps (one was

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the problem is not really limited computing power, but it's a design thing. Update speed has a really high priority, too high if you ask me. So regardless of computer power available, we want the fastest update speed possible. For the main

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

This is great information, I didn't know about your project, very very interesting. I have recently come to understand the OSM-Carto technical challenges recently. I haven't given it much of a thought as a casual mapper for the past two years, just been a bit disappointed with how it looks.

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Dear all, First off I would like to state how fascinating this conversation is. I’ve been working with OSM data for years, and I never understood how the rendering actually worked. It seems like the challenges are two-fold. One is computing power and the other seems to be rendering

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Sorry, I'm no expert so I should have been more humble and not state it as a "fact". I *think* multipolygon was supposed to be a way to make single entities of complex shapes, and these groups are not really single entities, but multiple entities with single names, and thus I find it "superior"

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Hello Graeme, the nature of these gravel yards vary a bit, but they can look like this: https://showmystreet.com/#12q73u_a3n0t_1v.a_-4f42 and they were made maybe 50 years ago. This one probably comes from the time the road was straightened in the 1970s or so. But there are also these

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

2020-11-07, št, 00:41 Anders Torger rašė: > However, how important is it that update of the map is immediate for every > database update? <...> OSM-Carto is a style whose purpose is to visualise OSM data to MAPPERS, do it quickly (fast feedback is essential). OSM-Carto also has a requirement

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

> some of these algorithms could run on GPU clusters these days No matter where code actually runs you need to have and handle this servers. For reference basic requirements for a render node include: 80 GB RAM (at least; better 128 GB); 6 or more CPU cores (12+ with HyperThreading, CPU year

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 6, 2020, 23:10 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 21:04 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> >: > >>> ** Support for group naming is limited. It's here very common that several >>> smaller islands are named as a group, smaller ponds

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 6, 2020, 23:39 by and...@torger.se: > > One example is making a multipolygon instead of the semantically superior > group, as multipolygon actually renders. > > Why multipolygon is supposed to be semantically inferior? ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

The documented tag for that is place=locality, an in populated named place. it's rendered and in Nomatnium. On Sat, 7 Nov 2020, 12:44 pm Martin Søndergaard, wrote: > I am also very much a newcomer only having mapped for a few months, and > so far I have constantly been running into the same

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

I am also very much a newcomer only having mapped for a few months, and so far I have constantly been running into the same problems that are mentioned in this thread. I am mapping in Denmark where we have high quality official information on place names. However, adding much of this

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Welcome! If you do choose to go down the path of the proposal process, I would potentially be willing to assist in the proposal drafting. It is certainly a bunch of work to get a proposal through, but it's hard because it's worth doing. I have a proposal in process now and a few others

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

On 2020-11-06 23:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 23:28 Uhr schrieb Anders Torger : I agree, but one renders (in some way at least), the other doesn't. Which one will the casual mapper choose? I'm a bit impatient and like to see results now. The cluster tag was drafted

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Good point, so there's a balance. However, how important is it that update of the map is immediate for every database update? To me it seems more desirable to have a higher quality cartography at the price of a lower update rate. Longer tile generation times won't affect serving rate, just how

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 23:28 Uhr schrieb Anders Torger : > I agree, but one renders (in some way at least), the other doesn't. Which > one will the casual mapper choose? I'm a bit impatient and like to see > results now. > > The cluster tag was drafted 2015, the group tag 2018. None of them

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 23:21 Uhr schrieb Anders Torger : > I have not understood why there are these CPU limits, if it's "just" due > to under-financed server infrastructure, or if it is a problem that can't > be solved regardless of server infrastructure. As a layman one would think > that some

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

I agree, but one renders (in some way at least), the other doesn't. Which one will the casual mapper choose? I'm a bit impatient and like to see results now. The cluster tag was drafted 2015, the group tag 2018. None of them render as far as I know. /Anders On 2020-11-06 23:10, Martin

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 at 04:34, Anders Torger wrote: > > ** Due to limitations in area-based name tagging the map looks empty > just when zoomed out a little, as names disappear almost directly, so > despite detailed mapping and tagging the overview map is not as useful > as it could be. While the

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Sorry for replying to myself, but I forgot to mention one important aspect that I myself hadn't realized until recently: it's seems to be a whole lot about processing power too. Name tag scaling and placement strategies are expensive algorithms compared to what we the default style does now,

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 21:04 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > ** Support for group naming is limited. It's here very common that several > smaller islands are named as a group, smaller ponds are named as a group > etc, without having individual names.

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

I'd love to help out if the workload and chance of success was reasonable, but I'm a bit wary about the tagging proposal process. Most of my mapping contributions is simple things like correcting and adding roads so all the various online route planners (and indeed bike computers) that use OSM in

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 6, 2020, 19:31 by and...@torger.se: > Hello everyone, newcomer here! > > I've been a casual contributing mapper for a couple of years here in Sweden. > Only since 2018 :-O, I thought it was longer, and during this time I've made > 1700 edits mostly using iD, just started using JOSM for

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

A gravel area tag/tagging convention is needed. One use I’ve seen is highways in particular seem to have gravel separator between the actual road and usually grass. Standardizing a area (a way) with just the surface=gravel tag could work. El El vie, nov. 6, 2020 a la(s) 12:34, Anders Torger

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

All great points there, I've ran into many of those myself. If you're interested in helping work on solutions to these, discussion here is probably the best place to start, once ideas gain some momentum you can start a tagging proposal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process. Going

[Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Hello everyone, newcomer here! I've been a casual contributing mapper for a couple of years here in Sweden. Only since 2018 :-O, I thought it was longer, and during this time I've made 1700 edits mostly using iD, just started using JOSM for some more complex edits. Anyway, I recently tried to