|
Top-level
 Okay, this goes into directions I did not intend to, so I'll finish by saying, this right now is very weird, but defining time for the OSM governance. I'm obviously a bit bitter with lacking support, but I understand the reasons, and won't push. I have many offers from really great companies. Offers to do GIS stuff very lightly related to OSM, and absolutely not for mappers. For good money and benefits. Idk what I choose, but I wanted to point at a trend. Which I've been doing since 2015. 4 comments
 @zverik "Change" as in welcoming (more) contributions in a more diverse way, including development, marketing etc? @richlv More as in changing how we see the OpenStreetMap project in general. Like, maybe, not just mappers?.. As I said earlier, just accept that supporting is not just providing tools. Although we fail even at that. Actually I've just looked at OSMF mission statement and could not even find "support the community" line. So that would be the change. For OSMF to start supporting OSM. @zverik Yeah, that seems to be happening, even if slowly - additional categories of contributing are recognised. Perhaps another way to look at it - as opposed to a more "classic" opensource project, anybody can start mapping. Whereas not everybody can start programming. Thus it would still be accurate that OSM is about mappers - just that we might want to encourage and recognise other types of contributions more. Would that be similar? |
Gregory's Server
OpenStreetMap is mappers. Their volunteer work, not only mapping, but also documenting, organizing events, and making stuff, is what made it the best map in the world.
OSM at core is not developers, so OSM has been losing them, is losing right now, and will lose them.
Developers define how efficient mapping is. Whether we manage our volunteers' time well.
Like, do they have to spend it on fixing vandalism instead of adding addresses.
Maybe we should at least think of changing?