Could imposm3 also be solution to T156433? Here I read that all ... relations can be imported.

In T238554#5672176, @Pikne wrote:

Could imposm3 also be solution to T156433? Here I read that all ... relations can be imported.

Possibly, I will consider it during the implementation.

Note that the openmaptiles project is rapidly improving, with the goal of generating tiles "on the fly" -- without the tile pregeneration step, and without mapnik. In other words, a vector tile (MVT) is generated by a single giant PostgreSQL query, and send to the user on request (with some caching to speed up frequently-viewed regions). Adapting this approach will greatly simplify current Wikipedia setup - no more Mapnik, no more Cassandra, easily scalable architecture (the more postgres replicas, the bigger the capacity).
P.S. And yes, OpenMapTiles is using Imposm3, together with a number of other good data sources like Natural Earth for low zooms.

In T238554#5672382, @Yurik wrote:

Note that the openmaptiles project is rapidly improving, with the goal of generating tiles "on the fly" -- without the tile pregeneration step, and without mapnik. In other words, a vector tile (MVT) is generated by a single giant PostgreSQL query, and send to the user on request (with some caching to speed up frequently-viewed regions). Adapting this approach will greatly simplify current Wikipedia setup - no more Mapnik, no more Cassandra, easily scalable architecture (the more postgres replicas, the bigger the capacity).
P.S. And yes, OpenMapTiles is using Imposm3, together with a number of other good data sources like Natural Earth for low zooms.

What do you think about having an RFC for that? I haven't had an opportunity to experiment with openmaptiles yet, but I am watching its steps.

@MSantos I am all for WMF to start using the OMT project rather than our first implementation, but I am not sure how valuable it will be to write an RFC -- so far WMF has not been too eager to support a proper map serving efforts, relying mostly on semi-volunteer efforts of different enthusiasts to keep it around. Do you think writing RFC will help in changing that? Or will it be just another dusty page on Phabricator?

@Yurik I think that OMT might be a good candidate for a proper Maps server that could reduce maintenance burden, which reflects the current resources of the project.

Considering this, having a centralized place to discuss the pros and cons and elaborate some directions for maps would be nice, it could even be a Wiki page where we could discuss/draft a proposal for this change, which I think is also constructive. What do you think?

sure, sounds good, so how about this - if you create a page/ticket/... with some basic info and goals, I will add implementation details to it. Would that work?

@MSantos there will be an OpenMapTiles community sync up this Thursday (10:30a ET), let me know if you would like to join in - we will be discussing how to move OMT forward, and possibly accommodate for Wikipedia needs. Email me YuriAstrakhan@gmail.com with your email addr.