While I love OSM the layers are bad UX. Currently the main site ( ) displays 7 layers:

- Standard -- OK, lets say this the universal default. The name is a quite non-descriptive, why not call it roads? Or driving?

- CyclOSM -- Why not call it cycle map? This is some internal project name?

- Cycle map -- duplicate, why does it need 2?

- Transport map -- What kind of transport? Call it "Public Transport".

- Tracestrack Topo -- no idea what this means.

- OVPNKarte -- again no idea. Looks like another public transport map. Why does it need 2?

- Humanitarian -- Here I have really no idea. Is this for disaster relief personnel, so it displays hospitals and such?

Nice. Here's a direct link to view San Francisco using Tracestack Topo:
Have been using for this for a while, and depending on what you're looking for it still has some advantages: does show the numbers on all height lines (osm only does the 50m one in my area for some reason, leaving you to guess whether the next one is 40m or 60m since that is not always obvious - seems like a key thing for a topographic map), does show the house numbers.
What’s the explanation for the Martian look at z≤8?


And it looks like this is a proprietary fork of Carto? Its inclusion on the OSM website is essentially an advertisement?

View it on a 3D globe here:
This is really cool!

Though I find myself looking for a provider of geocoding and navigation for a freelance project of mine.

I know that I could probably self-host OSRM and OpenMapTiles, but the hardware requirements make using a cloud service feel easier.

At the same time I can't really decide between something like Mapbox and MapTiler (or possibly even cheaper alternatives that I don't know about), since a lot of the APIs feel a bit vendor locked.

On the other hand, it's nice how many options there are, even though the industry feels like it's moving towards vector tiles which perform mich worse for me, albeit look better.

Crosswalks still look the same as sidewalks :(
I love osm, but the raster generators are not well documented.

I want to just make my own raster map for a limited area and it's not trivial to do.

So the data is open, but the software is either not free or too hairy or poorly documented so you can pay them to use it.

It's still better than Google map.

This looks nice, unlike Google's recent decision to completely redo their colors to look like Apple's terrible, faded colors.
I just wish it displayed buildings at zoom 16(today at 17, while default OSM renderer at 15). And similar for addresses displayed currently at 19, I wish it was at 18, while OSM default renderer displays at 17.
For some reason, the Tracestrack Topo layer doesn't load for me in firefox.
That's neat. It seems like it isn't available in OsmAnd though, sadly.
It looks beautiful especially the way altitude is displayed, on large scale the colors look great and when zooming in you get detailed shadows.
Can somebody ELI5 what hierarchical place rendering in China is?
It looks awesome!
so, how does one use osm for turn by turn navigation on an android phone?

I installed OSMand via f-droid and I did not find it very readable

Doesn't seem to have a license in the attribution overlay. Is this not CC-BY-SA like the rest? Is it served by Tracestack? Can you use it in very small FOSS apps without API keys?

It looks really nice visually though.

To use the Mastodon web application, please enable JavaScript. Alternatively, try one of the native apps for Mastodon for your platform.
To anyone at Mastodon reading this, I cannot read this article without turning JavaScript on! Yes, I've read your message to that effect many times.

I can turn on JavaScript but I won't, especially for you Mastodon—because you portray yourselves as an alternative to those services such as Google, Facebook, MS, etc. that use JS for nefarious purposes.

If you were truly acting as an alternative and acting in good faith then you wouldn't enforce the large and slow overhead of JavaScript onto users without also offering a JS-free option. Moreover, JS is also a security liability which makes your action even worse.

Sure, offer JavaScript to those who prefer to use it, and to those who don't know how to turn it off, but to enforce its use is really a form of discrimination—discrimination against those of us who've been arguing for an alternative to Big Tech for years.

The web's been rendered an utter mess because of JavaScript—not because of the language per se—but because of those who've its power to abuse and abuse and disadvantage web users for their own ends—we've now reached the point where many of us find the web almost unusable.

Mastodon, you've let the side that's fighting for a better web down.

Shame on you!