What’s the distinction you’re drawing here? I don’t know the implementation details, but my understanding is that it’s fundamentally exactly the same thing: the map is rendered by the browser/client using lines and polygons, rather than loading pre-rendered tiled images.

Works beautifully!

There are some things the renderer doesn’t seem to bother with that make the map feel quite empty right now – addr:housename, hedges, fences, walls, trees, car park areas, buildings under construction, some POIs (though I’ve not worked out which).

The colors also feel a bit bold and saturated, e.g. the pink of a retail area and the green of a forested area, but the hex values are the same so I’m not sure why I’m getting that effect.

But I’m excited about the fast loading, about being able to zoom enough to distinguish things that are close together, and about the potential for this to allow for map interactivity that’s more intuitive than the “query features” function.

The article links to an explanatory page in the very first paragraph after the lede.

Vector tiles serve up maps as vectors: points, lines and polygons. They store geographic data (like what makes up OpenStreetMap) in a format that allows for dynamic styling and interactivity. For users, vector tiles will mean a new, modern-looking map style with seamless zoom on openstreetmap.org, the map can be updated more quickly when data changes, and it should perform better for users.

What do you do if it comes up positive? Presumably if you know it’s a risk, you’d leave your phone in airplane mode or at home, and if you know it’s happening you’ve already been recorded?