|
Top-level
 @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. 3 comments
@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. |
Gregory's Server
@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/