Indeed.
Do you have any technical suggestions that might help? OSM doesn’t ask for “government ID” or similar because that what limit who can contribute greatly. I understand and share your frustration, but what is needed is something that is technically actionable.
The measures that have been put in place have definitely reduced the amount of damage that problem users can do, but not to zero. What do you suggest that has not been tried yet?
It was just a wish and I couldn’t resist letting it out. I understand the difficulties and I thank you for your efforts, and in general, everyone who is working hard on this.
I would like to finally see vector maps on OpenStreetMap website - it looks better mainly when zooming the map, but also when the map is static (because of resolution and scaling) and iirc, it should use less internet traffic.
It seemed like we are going to have it soon (judging by https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2024/02/11/2024-announcing-the-year-of-the-openstreetmap-vector-maps/ or https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2024/06/06/an-progress-update-on-vector-tiles-from-the-engineering-working-group/), but I don’t know about any later updates.
(for example here you can see a vector style copying OSM Carto, this is how it could look like)
The takeaway that I formed from the busway thing was that we need to split Carto into 1. An “ugly” mapper feedback layer that renders everything, and 2. A “pretty” general purpose consumers facing layer.
This is my answer to the original poster’s question.
Have you seen https://vector.openstreetmap.org/demo/shortbread/ ?
Vector tiles are coming, more information on Vector tiles on OSMF hardware
I’d like there to be an extra option on “what is the surface like here?”
There’s a ton of unsolved ones in Finland, and I think it’s just because none of the current options really suit one very common surface; a forest path. A metsäpolku. Forested footpath, well traveled, compacted.
It is very common in Finland, even in cities.
One thing that I always found odd about OpenStreetMap is how little moderation there is in comparison to, for example, Wikipedia.
On Wikipedia, important pages and articles or those with a history of vandalism, are blocked from being edited by unauthorised users, either temporarily or undefinedly.
But on OpenStreetMap, every new account can edit whatever they please, and their edits will appear on the map right-away; this benefits ill-intended users because they can alter the map for as long as they can until a mod or someone else notices their edits and reverts them or blocks them or whatever.
And, as very well @aTarom pointed out, if someone is very persistent and has a lot of spare time on their hands, they can create sock-puppet accounts and continue vandalising, creating an endless cycle of bad map edits that the mods will have to work to revert them afterwards.
It would be nice if OpenStreetMap implemented a similar system to Wikipedia, where zones with active vandalism will have temporal editing restrictions, where unauthorised users shouldn’t be able to submit edits (or a mod would have to review and approve them before they appear public).cut down
An alternative method would be to apply editing restrictions only to certain tags in certain zones or territories, for example make boundaries only editable by mods and authorised users (to prevent back-and-forth edits in disputed territories borders) among other uses (like for example, reduce the linguistic vandalism in the aragonese region of La Franja).
Is it about StreetComplete interface? I think that this one is Tag:surface=dirt - OpenStreetMap Wiki maybe Tag:surface=ground - OpenStreetMap Wiki
Signalized pedestrian crossings need to have better UI to them. Right now they’re so inconsistently done that even when done right, the only way to tell is to open the properties. The worst are signalized crossings without separate locations for the vehicle traffic signals. Recommend making a standard look showing both the triple and double light next to each other (if the crossing is tagged correctly). This is actually how the wiki shows it!
I’m leaving a link for reference, as I think it’s an example or hint of the identity of the OSM system.
Street view 
But seriously, this is the one thing I still use Google Maps for…
Better localized standards.
For example, something like bike lanes is not a single monolithic thing.
OSM standards would say an unprotected bike lane is a tag on the street line.
But legally in the US paint demarcates two lines. it’s a separated bike lane. a separate space if you will. so it needs s separate line
So the system needs to allow for some kind of reference flag that it’s following Missouri standards so someone from the UK doesn’t see it not matching their standard and try and change how it’s mapped. and rethink how things are managed people-wise so you must consult local standards for mapping
my local transportation development and planning org in Kansas City, MARC (they program federal funding for transit) has paved shoulders as an option that OSM does not and a paint protected lane as a true bike lane. So if the defining org for these things calls it a bike lane, it’s a bike lane and it should be mapped as one
I had to map a poorly designed drainage shoulder as a sidewalk. Something it’s both in a very real sense. there’s no tag for ad hoc sidewalk or demand path so within the current system you need to be flexible
and thus there’s a need to not have one single standard but thousands of them across the world
A “Follow Line” tool in iD or Rapid.
A imagery layer of multi-directional hillshade using open lidar data from across the world. For example, Canada produces the High Resolution Digital Elevation Model lidar dataset. Bonus points if the layer is available in two variants: regular gamma and half gamma rendering.
More imagery layers from open data sources from across the world. For example, most Canadian local governments have OGL licensed imagery but only a few local governments regularly upload that imagery to ESRI Community Maps (=ESRI World Imagery).
Access to another activity heatmap, such as the AllTrails heatmap.
I think it is already there, at least that is what f gets me
are these already submitted to GitHub - osmlab/editor-layer-index: A unified layer index for OSM editors. if we can use them? Or are they stuck waiting for PR or with PR waiting for review?
That’s parly why OSM France started Panoramax !
Edit/improve my changeset comments.
To be able to put some address as origin, other address as destination, and have OSM giving you the available ways of going from one place to the other through combinations of public transportation.
That would be great, and remove the necessity of any other online map.
I kind of find it astonishing, or maybe not, that the CWG has started this (on multiple) platforms without framing and limiting the scope to at least something semi-realistic and without any expectation management at all. As is, it is just going to lead to lots of disappointment and the opposite of good PR.
I suspect that it depends on what the CWG’s motivation for asking the original question was*1. Sometimes it can be useful to ask “very open” questions to get a wide range of suggestions (see above) that a more carefully worded question wouldn’t. Many won’t be actionable (mainly for financial reasons - see above again) but some might be.
Even when an expectation is unrealistic for OSM it can help start a conversation about how someone can scratch an itch using data from OSM without relying on someone “at OSM” to write something for them. The idea that you can create something yourself without relying on a Moogle or a Gicrosoft is pretty alien to people who never experienced the pre-1995 world when that was basically the norm. Add to that people not quite getting the unusual nature of the project, and there are always going to be suggestions that won’t fly*2 for all sorts of reasons.
*1 I genuinely don’t know what that was - I don’t know if it was even supposed to be a PR exercise.
*2 “let’s retag all X as Y!” “let’s keep arguing about former railways because if I say what I said 1000 times just once more surely it will convince someone”
