This is much better, clear and easier to read with many street labels
What about satellite imagery, which doesn’t appear in the test?
This is already a big improvement! I love the names show multiple times! The zoom is getting better. Though if I zoom out all county roads go away and only shows highways. So in what I would think is city view zoom it looks blank. Which for this area is only 6 miles across so not really very big. Both maps below are zoomed to right before they disappear.
Here is current:
From the link
Looks very nice to me. Would need to do a run with it to see if any issues arose. One I could potentially see is that the foot paths (the ones in the screenshot are ones I route through often) are extremely fine white dotted lines, which are OK to see against the green background when in a park, but harder to see against the light grey background:
Highways are not yellow anymore, some forests are not green anymore (ex: Sentier des Dames - CityStrides)
Another strange thing I’m noticing while updating OSM: some roads/paths don’t render on CS under the current Stadia Maps. The only difference between what appears and what doesn’t that I can tell is that the ones that don’t show up in CS are unnamed, but are clearly residential roads & foot paths…but unnamed roads and paths should definitely be shown in CS! Screenshots attached.
Edit to note that this is yet another reason why Satellite view is so useful, because it’s much more difficult to manually plot a route in the unannotated grey space than it would be to manually draw over satellite imagery showing where the road actually exists!
James, The very first thing I noticed, is that it does not have the city boundary for Granbury correct [link].
IDK if this will play a factor in what you do, but at the very minimum indicates they may not be as fast as other sources to bring in updates.
Eric
Ref: City shape in CityStrides not quite like official or OSM
Note: Granbury was fixed, so the CS link shows correct, not the old, boundary. At the time of this post, the Maptiler show an old/incorrect boundary.
PS. Will continue to scrutinize Maptiler.
I like this style! The street labels are super clear, the display is generally clean and uncluttered.
A few nitpicks:
Yes that one is much better… as long as they have a satellite toggle… will the satellite be avail?
I like the street visibility and the city lines… not all are there though so hopefully that won’t remove some unincorporated areas that we finally just obtained. Example: Castro Valley, CA
REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR CONSTANT WORK ON THIS!
Yeah, this has been a huge battle 
where a lot of complaints in this thread were based around the map being too noisy with all the service roads displayed. It took me a while to realize that the old style was hiding them while zoomed out further and fully displaying them on closer zooms – based on the feedback here, it sounded like they weren’t displayed at all. It also took me a little while to realize that people use these non-street ways differently - some do not want them and some really want them, so I have to figure out how to do two things at once.
It will be a bit of work that I kind of expect to span some days, but I’ll need to figure out the best way to style things in a way that pairs the show/hide over certain zooms and the prominence when they are displayed.
Once nice thing about this new provider, which I intend to push live in a few moments, is that the turnaround time on editing the styles is super fast. I click “publish”, you refresh your page & see the new style. So I’ll be able to react very quickly to style feedback.
Yeah, a screenshot paired with a mention of the city (even if you’ve said it before ) will help me out a lot.
Yeah, initially for active supporters. I need to assess usage before I can determine whether I can open it up entirely.
The map display isn’t directly connected to the data in CityStrides. Switching the map display provider is not going to affect which cities are available in CityStrides.
The style decides which borders to display based on the OpenStreetMap admin level. Most cities are at 8, most counties are at 6, and most regions are at 4. This is not constant around the world, though, so there will definitely be places that don’t have this feature.
I have no idea the level of effort of implementing layer toggling, regarding the want of many for different visuals displayed. Is it possible for users to be able to toggle layers? Where layers are equal to the OSM access=?name?
Loving the new update. Thanks for taking into account our feedback. Map is looking good, really user friendly and happy to see satellite view back.
New map is fantastic, drew out a few maps and was pleased that no sidewalks were picked up. You are so accommodating to listen to all of this feedback! Thank you!
Sorry, I was on mobile and couldn’t figure out how to link it in a usable way
Here’s an example of the plaza thing:
Hope this clarifies what I meant 
What a difference between the first release of this map and now. It looks great! Thank you for all your hard work and doing what you do to improve all our running experiences James.
Is is possible to have the highways be a different color than runnable streets? And can we have cemeteries and airports be identified with a different color like you have schools and parks? I believe they were different colors in previous versions.
Thanks again!
Perfect, thanks!
Yeah, these are categorized in the style editor as road_path. The old service categorized the entire area as road-pedestrian-polygon-pattern and shaded the entire area.
Maybe dulling the color isn’t as effective as giving it a unique but subtle style. For example, brightening the white but giving it a more pronounced dotted effect:
I don’t know what I’m doing 
There was a reply earlier 
remarking how the white highways caused the LifeMap to have more presence, and that the yellow lines were clashing. They do live in an incredibly highway-dense area:
So reapplying the original highway color changes things quite a bit:
I was going to say no, because the service doesn’t differentiate the landuse like the old service did … but then I realized that I can add layers with specifications to address this.
I’m not sure I want to add this distinction. It would help if you can explain your use case of highlighting them on the map. I’m not saying no, I just want to be purposeful in which details are displayed on the map - a lot of people showing up in this thread are here because there was more stuff on the map. 
I was thinking along the lines that highways are unrunnable. Having them the same color as streets that haven’t been run yet makes the map look incomplete in my opinion (especially if one has finished an area where they ran all those streets). Seeing this today when I was planning a run, I found myself zooming to an area thinking that I missed a street only to find out that it was a highway now white.
Either way, the new version of the map looks great! Thanks.
Yeah, I’m fiddling with trying to make them subtly different as opposed to YELLOWYORANGE 
maybe dark grey?
Edit:: I just realized that uses opacity, which seems to show start/end points of ways, which is confusing - this version is a lighter color that’s fully opaque:
How about the cemeteries/airports? I’m not sure I want to highlight them on the map, so hearing use cases for them to be highlighted will help me understand better.
That grey looks awesome! That makes its easier to tell the difference.
The rational for cemeteries and airports to have a different color was also a visual one. Those areas look incomplete on a Lifemap when they are surrounded by streets already completed. Running in areas with large cemetaries (Queens, New York as an example) makes the map look incomplete. I do feel it’s less important than the highway situation.
Awesome job and thanks for looking into this!
grey is good!
how about the green for forest?
