|
Top-level
 Nobody in OSMF asked to be part of LF. And we shouldn't. Foundations usually don't talk among themselves (I guess?) So there is another group. For packaging data for consumers and promoting open geodata to businesses. On a scale never seen before. They needed a foundation, and LF stepped in. Why wouldn't they? It open data. Participating companies have a good track record in supporting open source. Bringing open data to more people — what's not to like? OM competes with Google, not OSM. 31 comments
You might think, this is normal, OpenStreetMap always relied on people, and companies rarely did anything good for us. Which is wrong, in OSM history years like this were rare, maybe 20%, mostly at the beginning. That thing that's happening everywhere, with mass layoffs and axed projects, reached OSM indirectly. We're on our own now. So what the community (well, @simon yesterday) is saying, we see Overture, Linux Foundation, and Niantic moving big money, why they don't support the commons, us? And my points are: 1) €30k for participating in OSMF won't do anybody good, and everyone sees that. Niantic were smart to not subscribe. 2) Overture Maps delivers. They are worth their money, and they will make the world use OSM. They are good guys. 3) Supporting mappers is like supporting openssl. Nobody even thinks of how the map is made until something breaks. And OM protects people from obvious breakages. 4) There is no way to support mapping currently. At all. Not Niantic's or LF fault.  @zverik Good thread, you’re basically on target. Overture is an outcome of OSMF’s traditional policy to remain as small as possible, plus a decade of the originating companies repeating each others’ work on OSM mapping and validation and finally realizing they have a common interest.  @ian @zverik That lost decade was a key ingredient: those of us who’ve moved through these companies working on OSM-adjacent things kept hearing the same stuff in our informal chats over the years, like “oh yeah they’re trying to figure that out at the fruit company too but nobody’s allowed to share notes unless we create an exec-approved structure to do it in” … this is what LF is for.  @zverik You are really missing the point. While it would have been nice if Niantic had supported the organisation producing what one of its major products is based on, that isn't a requirement and nobody suggested that. What is despicable on any count, is refusing any communication while its customers vandalize #OpenStreetMap. For example communication on how to best mitigate said vandalism. @simon If OSM were successful, Niantic would be one in a thousand similarly influential map users. To me, it's the same as the current e-scooters on sidewalks debate: the problem is not in scooter drivers or road code, but in the infrastructure. OSM infrastructure hasn't significantly changed in 12 years, and that's not a LF's fault. But, on the other hand, we'll have vector tiles any day now. (okay I'm missing the Fastly and Overpass things that happened in 2021, but still, that's not about mapping) @zverik I would suggest sticking with the facts including not claiming that #OpenStreetMap has failed. OSM infrastructure is day and night different than it was in 2012. Not just technically but organisational too. Heck back in 2012 the most popular editor was flash based Potlatch 2. Current contributors wouldn't even know what that is if you hit them over the head with it. @simon Good thing Mapbox was there for us back then! I'm not saying OSM got worse or anything. Ten years ago I wouldn't write all this because nobody expected anything from the Board or OSMF. The governance did improve a lot with and after Allan. It's just their strategy is still "make an app idk", and I want to affect it — but I don't have the hours to devote to working on the Board. Alas in this I feel I'm turning into Christoph :( @zverik actually Mapbox back then was a good example of how a symbiotic relationship with a commercial entity can work to the benefit of both sides. Mapbox repeated what they had already done with Tilemill to kickstart the company enough that they could really get going. It was clear that this wouldn't fly without buy in from the OSMF and OSM at large, and they talked to the OSMF and once the grant was awarded the work on both the website and iD was done not against, but with the community. @simon @zverik The Mapbox staff doing the work at the time described how difficult it was to work with the community: enduring abuse, devoting time for psychological recovery, limiting time spent on the project, and swiftly exiting it once minimum deliverables were complete. Source: talks from team members ca. 2014, not recorded. Great software came out of it, but also a general understanding that the OSMF can’t support this kind of work.  @grischard @migurski @simon If that's not the case, I'm happy to be found wrong! @defuneste @simon not successful ≠ failed. I meant it in terms of adoption as it is, a universal public geodatabase, not just a background layer or anything. So I'd say that's a failure of most companies to see the value in OSM, not of OSM itself. Even here I would separate "not seeing value" and "not seeing value to provide some support". Seeing the list of company that use OSM, and pay mappers it does not seem they do not see value. Even as a "public geodatabase" it is quite good and way above some corporate mess (yes I works in private sector and I have see some nightmare). I should rephrase that: "data does not bring value, product does" (say a lot of folks)  This Pokémon only spawns in areas with the natural=beach tag. As a result, some players have been adding beaches near their neighborhoods to make it easier to catch the Pokémons. In fact, I've already come across Pokémon GO player blogs that actively encourage other players to edit the OpenStreetMap data directly to facilitate easier catching. @rtnf Niantic uses outdates map data, there's no confirmation that newsly mapped beaches affect pokemon spawns. Basically a few players encourage thousands other playes to vandalize the map, and a company is held accountable.  @zverik @rtnf it's not like a gun manufacturer being blamed for the people their guns kill. To complete the metaphor, the gun manufacturer would have to blindly give prizes for dressing people as deer and shooting them. Or something like that. IIRC, this is the second time Pokemon Go players 'cheat' by vandalizing the map; Niantic should have learned the first time. Honestly, if I played the game and there were prizes on ski slopes, glaciers or polar caps, I would feel pretty frustrated too. @zverik @sotm our 2024 budget https://osmfoundation.org/w/images/0/06/OSMF_2024_Budget_v2024-02-23.pdf includes 12k£ for local chapters and 133k£ on engineering, which includes editor software. This is a lot more than previous years, and shows how supporting mappers is a priority for us. Our income is our limit. Afaik, Overture and Niantic haven't spent a penny on supporting mappers. @grischard That's great, I know of this and I support this! I just wish that a) OSMF had more income (which doesn't appear magically, it's daily work setting up partnerships and planning, and that's not a job for volunteers), and b) it did more direct outreach (like microgrants and pizza funds and community funds), in addition to €80k for iD development (essential) and like €24k sponsorship between EWG and LCCWG. @zverik tell Niantic to actually become a member then :). There is a microgrant budget for both of these - again, limited by income. I hope you have cool ideas for a microgrant in the pipeline. @grischard One of the points I mentioned in my rant, I don't believe an extra €30k would do any change. This model would work if we had 100+ organizations as platinum members. With just two (one of which did not intend to), it is unsustainable and indicates something's wrong with the entire corporate sponsorship framework. I'd prefer for big companies to wait until OSMF comes with a program aimed at big donors that demonstrates their money would indeed make the map better. @zverik @grischard €30k is the membership cost, not the upper bound for how much a company can contribute in a given year if OSMF has a particular funding drive / specific program that might be of interest to them.  @zverik FWIW, open source foundations talk amongst themselves all the time, including on a mailing list that has been active for over a decade. OSMF has, for various reasons (some good, some bad), never really actively participated in that conversation (either online or IRL). (This is not to defend LF, who are not always great partners either, though for different reasons.) |
Gregory's Server
What LF didn't consider is that OSMF as it stands now doesn't support mappers. OSMF supports servers, consumers, and @sotm. That what you'd get from their meeting topics:
https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Monthly_Board_Meetings
Historically supporting mappers fell to businesses. HOT, Cloudmade, Mapbox. But now we're at a point when all of them fell off. Nobody supports mappers except other mappers.
In this resource-starved situation, people think not of collaboration, but of competing. Overture takes our resources!
What LF didn't consider is that OSMF as it stands now doesn't support mappers. OSMF supports servers, consumers, and @sotm. That what you'd get from their meeting topics:
https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Monthly_Board_Meetings
Historically supporting mappers fell to businesses. HOT, Cloudmade, Mapbox. But now we're at a point when all of them fell off. Nobody supports mappers except other mappers.