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