In T215073#4921814, @Lydia_Pintscher wrote:

I'm sorry but this is not unbreak now.
How is the current situation different from how things are on Wikipedia?

Please look at the map of India from the website of Indian Government http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/pages/display/235-political-map-of-india

And compare it to the result this SPARQL is giving out:

https://query.wikidata.org/embed.html#%23defaultView%3AMap%7B%22hide%22%3A[%22%3Fcoordinates%22%2C%20%22%3Fline%22%2C%20%22%3Frgb%22]%7D%0A%23%20Adapted%20from%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wikidata.org%2Fwiki%2FWikidata%3ARequest_a_query%2FArchive%2F2018%2F10%23Good_example_query_with_LINESTRING%0ASELECT%20DISTINCT%20%3Fcoordinates%20%3Fline%20%3Fitem%20%3FitemLabel%20%3FconnectLabel%20%3Fimage%20%3Fcode%20%3Frgb%0A%0AWITH%20%7B%0A%20%20SELECT%20%3Fitem%20%28SAMPLE%28%3Fcoordinates%29%20AS%20%3Fcoordinates%29%20%28SAMPLE%28%3Fimage%29%20AS%20%3Fimage%29%20%28sample%28%3Flat1%29%20as%20%3Flat1%29%20%28sample%28%3Flon1%29%20as%20%3Flon1%29%20%28sample%28%3Fcode%29%20as%20%3Fcode%29%20WHERE%20%7B%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fitem%20wdt%3AP31%20wd%3AQ55488.%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fitem%20wdt%3AP17%20wd%3AQ668%20.%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fitem%20wdt%3AP625%20%3Fcoordinates%20%20.%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fitem%20p%3AP625%20%2F%20psv%3AP625%20%2F%20wikibase%3AgeoLatitude%20%3Flat1%20.%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fitem%20p%3AP625%20%2F%20psv%3AP625%20%2F%20wikibase%3AgeoLongitude%20%3Flon1%20.%0A%20%20%20%20OPTIONAL%20%7B%20%3Fitem%20wdt%3AP18%20%3Fimage%20%7D.%0A%20%20%20%20OPTIONAL%20%7B%20%3Fitem%20wdt%3AP5696%20%3Fcode%20%7D.%0A%20%20%7D%20GROUP%20BY%20%3Fitem%0A%7D%20AS%20%25stations%0A%0AWITH%20%7B%0A%20%20SELECT%20%3Fnextstation%20%28sample%28%3Flat2%29%20as%20%3Flat2%29%20%28sample%28%3Flon2%29%20as%20%3Flon2%29%20WHERE%20%7B%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fnextstation%20wdt%3AP31%20wd%3AQ55488%20.%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fnextstation%20wdt%3AP17%20wd%3AQ668%20.%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fnextstation%20p%3AP625%20%2F%20psv%3AP625%20%2F%20wikibase%3AgeoLatitude%20%3Flat2%20.%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fnextstation%20p%3AP625%20%2F%20psv%3AP625%20%2F%20wikibase%3AgeoLongitude%20%3Flon2%20.%0A%20%20%7D%20GROUP%20BY%20%3Fnextstation%0A%7D%20AS%20%25nextstations%0A%0AWITH%20%7B%0A%20%20SELECT%20%3Fline%20%3Fconnect%20%28%229B0058%22%20as%20%3Frgb%29%20WHERE%20%7B%0A%20%20%20%20INCLUDE%20%25stations%20.%0A%20%20%20%20INCLUDE%20%25nextstations%20.%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fitem%20p%3AP197%20%3Fnextstationstatement%20.%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fnextstationstatement%20ps%3AP197%20%3Fnextstation%20.%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fnextstationstatement%20pq%3AP81%20%3Fconnect%20.%20%3Fconnect%20wdt%3AP127%20wd%3AQ819425%20%20.%20%0A%20%20%20%20FILTER%28STR%28%3Fitem%29%20%3C%20STR%28%3Fnextstation%29%29%20.%20%20%20%20%0A%20%20%20%20BIND%28CONCAT%28'LINESTRING%20%28'%2C%20STR%28%3Flon1%29%2C%20'%20'%2C%20STR%28%3Flat1%29%2C%20'%2C'%2C%20STR%28%3Flon2%29%2C%20'%20'%2C%20STR%28%3Flat2%29%2C%20'%29'%29%20AS%20%3Fstr%29%20.%0A%20%20%20%20BIND%28STRDT%28%3Fstr%2C%20geo%3AwktLiteral%29%20AS%20%3Fline%29%20%0A%20%20%7D%0A%7D%20AS%20%25lines%20%0A%20%0AWHERE%20%7B%0A%20%20%7B%20INCLUDE%20%25stations%20%7D%20%20UNION%20%7B%20INCLUDE%20%25lines%20%20%7D%20.%0A%20%20SERVICE%20wikibase%3Alabel%20%7B%20bd%3AserviceParam%20wikibase%3Alanguage%20%22[AUTO_LANGUAGE]%2Cen%22.%20%7D%0A%7D

This may not be an high priority change technically but it is an extremely high priority change to evade legal actions against Wikimedia Foundation from the Indian government.

We do not have editorial control over the data in Wikidata, yet less on maps provided by the third party. We also are not subject neither to Indian law nor the Twitter audience "law". The situation where some governing body has objection to some content in the open sources or wide Internet, whether on Wikimedia or not, is completely routine and happens all the time. It would certainly be unfortunate if somebody overreacts and makes some unfortunate moves due to any particular situation, however whatever happens does not change these basic facts. We show what OSM maps provide.

We may certainly consider implementing different layers or different providers (I have no idea how hard or easy that is), but this decision I think should be driven by technical merits and community needs, not by whether some Twitter users like or dislike certain content.

FYI, there has been a number of discussions at OSM on how to document disputed territories. See the latest proposal.

In T215073#4921868, @Smalyshev wrote:

We do not have editorial control over the data in Wikidata, yet less on maps provided by the third party. We also are not subject neither to Indian law nor the Twitter audience "law". The situation where some governing body has objection to some content in the open sources or wide Internet, whether on Wikimedia or not, is completely routine and happens all the time. It would certainly be unfortunate if somebody overreacts and makes some unfortunate moves due to any particular situation, however whatever happens does not change these basic facts. We show what OSM maps provide.

We may certainly consider implementing different layers or different providers (I have no idea how hard or easy that is), but this decision I think should be driven by technical merits and community needs, not by whether some Twitter users like or dislike certain content.

It is very irresponsible if the reliability of the map is questioned, yet it is been implicatied that "we will use the map because its free". In fact, the map that has been provided (OSM) is very different https://openstreetmap.in/#4/25.32/77.17 and accurate than the one rendered by Wikimedia, it is an act of intentional vandalism, then. If Wikimedia use what OSM provide then please restore it to that version instead of creating a new coined version.

In T215073#4921970, @Jim_Carter wrote:

It is very irresponsible if the reliability of the map is questioned, yet it is been implicatied that "we will use the map because its free". In fact, the map that has been provided (OSM) is very different https://openstreetmap.in/#4/25.32/77.17 and accurate than the one rendered by Wikimedia, it is an act of intentional vandalism, then. If Wikimedia use what OSM provide then please restore it to that version instead of creating a new coined version.

Jim, the main OpenStreetMap map - https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=4/25.32/77.17 shows a different border than the one you linked to. I understand it is a touchy subject (similar to Crimea and several other disputed territories). Unfortunately WMF is not currently investing into maps in any significant fashion, and moreover, a developer (@Pnorman) was hired to work on better display of the disputed territories, and after over a year of work, after it essentially being 90% complete, WMF decided to stop the project without any explanation to the community.

Change 490951 had a related patch set uploaded (by Mahir256; owner: Mahir256):
[wikidata/query/gui@master] added tiles parameter to defaultView params of CoordinateResultBrowser

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/490951

Can I gently detach this issue, somewhat, from disputed territory. The current situation is that maps served by Wikipedias & (my key use) Wikidata WDQS use "OSM Bright for Mapbox Studio" tiles ( https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Maps_Terms_of_Use#Where_does_the_map_data_come_from? )

OSM themselves offer four main tile styles - normal, cycle map, transport map, and humanitarian. (IMO none of which are as weedy as OSM Bright)

AFAIK there are other open source tiling solutions available - cf. https://code.flickr.net/2012/07/11/designing-an-osm-map-style/

A key use case for tiles other than OSM Bright for Mapbox Studio, is use of a WDQS map to sort out P131 properties for wikidata items (e.g. are they on the right side of a boundary). OSM Bright for Mapbox Studio does not display administrative borders - at least, not internal admin borders - https://twitter.com/Tagishsimon/status/1167898124687310848 - and so maps such as https://w.wiki/7iy produced by WDQS are of limited use.

So, per the main proposition: a one-size-fits-all tiling solution is suboptimal. It would be infinitely preferable to be able to extend the provision of tiles and parameterise the tile choice (not least because the single current tile offering is cartographic thin gruel)

In T215073#4922001, @Yurik wrote:

Unfortunately WMF is not currently investing into maps in any significant fashion

I think I may have identified the root cause of the problem

and after over a year of work, after it essentially being 90% complete, WMF
decided to stop the project without any explanation to the community.

<boggle> Where is/was this being discussed, please?

In T215073#5456845, @Tagishsimon wrote:

a one-size-fits-all tiling solution is suboptimal. It would be infinitely preferable to be able to extend the provision of tiles and parameterise the tile choice (not least because the single current tile offering is cartographic thin gruel)

+1

Its plainly not suitable to use the same tiles for everything - sometimes we want admin boundaries, sometimes topography, sometimes other things. Should we raise a separate ticket, or would that just be merged back here?

In T215073#5456845, @Tagishsimon wrote:

So, per the main proposition: a one-size-fits-all tiling solution is suboptimal. It would be infinitely preferable to be able to extend the provision of tiles and parameterise the tile choice (not least because the single current tile offering is cartographic thin gruel)

Agree - it would be great if we could have multiple tilesets. I think the suggestion here for one focused on admin borders and one focused on topography would be very useful.

An earlier somewhat related request: T149518, to add support for polar mapping as an alternative map format (at the moment we have a Mercator projection that stops dead at ~85N/S), although that one is presumably a bit more complicated than just "display with alternative tiles"...

On a separate but related issue: we now have quite a lot of images of old maps on Commons, with coordinate georeferencing allowing the maps to be "warped" to standard coordinate systems. It would be nice to be able to serve the warped versions of the maps as tilesets, allowing users to compare different historical representations of given places as layers.

This would be a huge boost for the WikiMaps group that has been working with historical maps, and a service of considerable value towards a world where people can freely share in the sum of historical knowledge about their location.

Its plainly not suitable to use the same tiles for everything - sometimes we want admin boundaries, sometimes topography, sometimes other things. Should we raise a separate ticket, or would that just be merged back here?

a one-size-fits-all tiling solution is suboptimal. It would be infinitely preferable to be able to extend the provision of tiles and parameterise the tile choice (not least because the single current tile offering is cartographic thin gruel)

Agree - it would be great if we could have multiple tilesets. I think the suggestion here for one focused on admin borders and one focused on topography would be very useful.

Summarizing this it is clear all that is required is a mechanism to specify a custom basemap. The OpenStreetMap iD editor has implemented this quite well in a simple and flexible way - a single input box which supports usual wms/tms imagery url formats. This can directly be used to swap the map tiles being rendered in leaflet https://leafletjs.com/reference.html#tilelayer

This is likely to be the simplest approach to providing users flexibility in the basemap used.