|
Top-level
 @zverik @openstreetmap the malaise over OSM is the alienation of mapping labor - all the productization and thus value extraction happens outside of OSM proper. So commercial downstreams keep their “distributions” of the kernel proprietary with the minimum possible collaboration inside the OSM bubble. Mappers are turned off by potential exploitation so become suspicious of anything other than mapping for mapping's sake. A vicious cycle! 3 comments
@zverik @bdon @openstreetmap This is not really similar to Linux at all then. Mapping and make data doesn't require the mapper to be a developer. Developers are needed for infrastructure. You also need expertise in design, and people with product vision who can lead and rally a team. It's hard for mappers to be developers, designers, product owners, all in one person. Many OSMers don't care about usability. Or if somebody actually sees their work. Many like me mostly use Google Maps and Waze.  @cbed @bdon @openstreetmap I'll answer to each tweet :) So, this is indeed unlike Linux, but a bit like Wikipedia. They have got millions of editors, but very few developers — some volunteer, some they had to hire, because people rarely align to tasks. Another example is HOT. They are primarily mappers and community builders, but they have to hire developers to make their operations effective. An opposite example is the TomTom OSM team. They struggle with what tools other people made. |
Gregory's Server
@bdon @openstreetmap Looks like the question is allocation of resources! Corporations focus on preparing the data to deliver to their customers. Perfectly fine, that's what we're here for: mapping for people.
It's developers we're competing after. OSM doesn't have good monitoring / validation tools, hence the downstream distributions. If wikipedia didn't filter lies, won't be there a commercial extract too?
Corps have more resources, they get a better deal. OSMF doesn't, mappers get nothing.