Gregory's Server@simon @everydoor as a complete outsider I appreciate projects like Osm Go! And Every Door. Without them the step to quickly contribute small improvements is just too complex so that it doesn't happen. So I do think having multiple solutions do help the ecosystem forwards.
Of course, the flip side of having too much choice and fragmentation can also become a hindrance. But there is still so much room for innovation!
|
Top-level
12 comments
 You're speaking as if we only have a small pool of contributors and money (haha), for which too many projects compete. Similar to what I've heard from Bryce. While in reality, we have too few editors and too many people unhappy with options they have. Like, why does HOT rely on ODK instead of better OSM-based editors, or at least QField/MerginMaps? Why don't they come to you to tailor Vespucci? This is not specific for OSM, but for all mobile apps ever. The pool is big enough.  I agree (with "can't afford"), and that has been my point wrt OSMF for many years now. There is a negative: OSM ecosystem is unsustainable on current funds, and we are extremely lucky to have volunteers who can afford spending their own time on software. But take it from the other POV: we are starting to get much-awaited funding after spending two decades developing everything for free. This is a trend. And with only 4 mobile editors, I woudn't say "too many projects". 4 mobile editors (that depends on the definition could easily be more), plus at least 3 online editors, three desktop ones, and a dozen or so of assorted "editing in some fashion" apps. @flub @zverik the thing is they don't (at least that is what the numbers say), the users in "Every new editor gains thousands of users." are typically not actually "new". Even SC only has a marginal effect on new contributor influx (and there is a lot to say about retention and long term impact there). The main thing I don't understand, why do you all operate user counts? Is that one thing that matters? Like, you repeatedly suggested editors with most users should get funding, and that the problem is that the number of users is low, hence new editors make it even lower for older editors. While the main thing that matters is the map. New editors make for different mapping. SC made people map road surfaces and crossing tags. ED makes POI data better. MC turns to other layers. @zverik @simon Exactly! e.g. Vespucci for new buildings and paths and such, StreetComplete for random contributions on the go, etc. 99% of contributions I made with StreetComplete would have never existed without StreetComplete. I wouldn't bother e.g. opening Vespucci to check if stuff is properly tagged. But also: vast majority of stuff I added with Vespucci would have never been added if Vespucci hadn't existed, as I wouldn't bother sitting in front of a computer to add stuff from home. @zverik @flub OSM as a whole has, very very, limited development (in a wide sense of the word) resources. How they are allocated is not irrelevant for the future of the project (and that doesn't apply to editing apps alone). And while user numbers are just one possible metric for how well those resources are being used, I suspect it is the least controversial one. @simon @flub This reminds me of, "why do you map your own home when there are entire cities with no map?!" OSM is primarily a volunteer-driven project, and you cannot make volunteers do things they don't like. (I'd argue it is now a corporation-driven project, because they do have money and developers.) Also, nothing happens in OSM by chance. You want it — you make it. Virtually no money or resources is "allocated" apart from 3 people we have employed. You want change — you go and make it. |
@flub @everydoor while people don't like to hear this: things still need to happen in a space which makes at least a bit of economic sense and spending, virtual or real, $1000s per user per year for in the end a very small number of edits is just bonkers.