Gregory's Server@zverik I think what happened is that companies and foundations wanted some sort of "handle" on OSM and didn't understand OSM enough so they had to stuff it into a box they could understand. A box that is not a movement but a proper corporate entity they can deal with. Something with a big budget, lots of employees, and a leader you can put pressure on. It is possible that the OSMF could have pre-empted that by becoming such a corporate entity. It would have been a capitulation.
|
22 comments
 @IvanSanchez @woodpeck hah I knew this word would doom the sentiment :) The goal of @openstreetmap is indeed growth. More mappers, more map data, more tools, more users. There are nuances, but I'm sure if you ask around, 99 out of 100 times you'll get this. For OSMF, the goal is supporting the project as an organization. Meaning, it should grow with OSM, not fall behind. What I meant, was not numeric, but organizational. OSMF is still dozen IT guys in a trenchcoat, not an entity to talk to. @zverik @IvanSanchez @woodpeck @openstreetmap I am sorry but to me, OSMF is to support the environment for OpenStreetMap.  @Melaskia @zverik @IvanSanchez this is why I love apps like @streetcomplete and @everydoor. They're highlighting another level of #OpenStreetMap and making it much easier for people (incl me) to add that data. There are many types of data, where we are far from complete  @amapanda @Melaskia @zverik @IvanSanchez @luis_in_brief Since I've had anything to do with OSM, a good 15 years, enabling low barriers to entry has been the dominating mantra, and there have been wide variety of apps doing exactly that. They do not drive long term engagement any better than the web based browser iD, and actually most of them are so much worse at doing that, that we are not really doing OSM a service by directing people to them. ... @amapanda @Melaskia @zverik @IvanSanchez @luis_in_brief ... Note on the side compared to WP even iD makes contributing trivial so we are not talking about a high bar to entry to start with. I had a longer discussion on a related topic with @zverik here https://en.osm.town/@simon/112206877070048055 @amapanda @Melaskia @zverik @IvanSanchez @luis_in_brief My hypothesis is that making things easier also reduces the value of leaning how to contribute and makes the whole thing less of a rewarding pastime. There are naturally similar scenarios in all areas of human endeavour. @amapanda @Melaskia @zverik @IvanSanchez @luis_in_brief Back on the maintenance topic. There has been this concept that this would be done by the drive by contributors that the "simple" tools are targeted at, and while that can't be completely dismissed, just the volume and nature of what has to be maintained would suggest that that is not going to happen. Just consider that it isn't really #OpenStreetMap these days ... @amapanda @Melaskia @zverik @IvanSanchez @luis_in_brief .. but more "OpenBuildingMap" keeping that up to date, regardless of (insert you fav buzz word here) tooling is simply uninteresting drudgery that is only going to be done by people that are actually committed to the cause. ... @amapanda @Melaskia @zverik @IvanSanchez @luis_in_brief ... Factor in the difference in contribution volume between incidental and even just average regular contributors (easily 10^5) and I believe you can't come to a different conclusion that what we really need is more highly engaged and dedicated contributors. @simon @amapanda @Melaskia @IvanSanchez @luis_in_brief Yeah I came to a similar conclusion. Not dismissing drive-by contributors from OMaps and SC — they are essential because some map is better than no map. But I really don't know how to find highly engaged contributors. How to find people that look at the map and think, oh, okay, this might be the thing to which I will devote every day of the rest of my life. All I can do is make tools to ease and speed up our work, so we focus on fun bits. @simon @amapanda @Melaskia @IvanSanchez @luis_in_brief When OSM is mentioned, it's always boring stuff like "open license", "tech enthusiasts", "used by major corporations", "everyone can register" blah blah. Not the real things like you could go into a forest or a city, experience it from new sides, learn a lot and share this knowledge with others via mapping with your phone or camera or pen and paper. It makes you smarter and healthier and doesn't require you to learn Python or whatever.  @simon @amapanda @Melaskia @IvanSanchez @luis_in_brief That is actually an excellent point! Because "contributing to OSM" is a non-goal, much like "reading a book" or "caring for the environment". A goal needs to be achievable (e.g. medals in StreetComplete) and social (so that a person gets some praise). Missing Maps events got that quite right. For me, OSM is kinda like pokemon: I like to collect everything. That's why @everydoor is like this: clunky but super effective at a scale. @zverik @simon @amapanda @IvanSanchez @luis_in_brief @everydoor @zverik @amapanda @Melaskia @IvanSanchez @luis_in_brief I would nearly completely disagree, we have plenty of experience, with the examples that you mention, how horribly it can go wrong if improving the "map" for yourself and for others is not the primary motivation. The best positive feedback is things working better for you however you interact with #OpenStreetMap. ... @zverik @woodpeck @openstreetmap I disagree that growth is a/the goal of OSM(F). The *raison d'être* of OSM was the lack of availability of geodata, and growth **was** a means of achieving critical mass for affecting policy, which IMO is the goal. Drive a fear of becoming irrelevant into mapping agencies. I'm totally biased because I'm a Spaniard, and we've got creative-commons-licensed 10cm imagery and 5k vector maps and gazetteers and whatnot. Mission accomplished. We can chill and have fun.  @IvanSanchez @zverik @woodpeck @openstreetmap That’s the European perspective on OSM in a nutshell: works great, what’s all the fuss? The corporate perspective when I was involved looked at the places where OSM was not yet successful: for FB, mapping outside rich countries was important. For other Overture partners, consistency and depth of data for navigation & wayfinding were needed. Since that time TomTom has built an entire data strategy around interop with OSM: https://www.tomtom.com/tomtom-orbis-maps/ @migurski @zverik @woodpeck @openstreetmap I agree with you in the sense that I acknowledge that US-based corps would like OSM to cover their wants/needs. But you're kinda making @woodpeck 's argument here: corps struggle to grasp this grassroots thing made by a handful of british guys and a dozen german hackers in a trenchcoat. Corps will want to sculpt that into something they can have some control and extract value out of. @migurski @zverik @woodpeck @openstreetmap Which leads to the *ethos* of the issue at hand: What do we want OSM(F) to be; what should OSM(F) be? It can be a crowdsourcing tool so that US-based corps can extract value out of it. Or it can be a GIS playground so that anarchist hackers can play around and invent new things. I do not think it can be those two things at once. And I'll choose anarchist hackers over US corps, any day. |
@woodpeck No.
Enough.
I have read the same sentiment since I joined OSM, and at first I agreed.
14 years later I see nothing has changed, and mostly because you are influential in OSM and this all looks logical.
But what you are saying is, OSMF should remain powerless and amorphous, so that loud voices kept weighting more than an organizational strategy.
Becoming a corporate entity that has a roadmap and is easy to talk to is not a capitulation. It's growth.