<div dir="ltr">Hi Simon,<div><br></div><div>> <span style="font-size:12.8px">to a model more Wikipedia like</span><br><div><br></div><div>To be honest, the "model" I was thinking about was more related to John's mention of:</div><div><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)">> over $80M USD in revenues in 2016</pre></div></div><div class="gmail_extra">That's a lot of money that could be spent improving OSM for the contributors :-)</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I don't wish to see the OSMF change to a WM model, or to radically change how things are done here (less arguing and conspiracy theories, perhaps). I don't want the OSMF to become a defacto services provider. I'm don't edit wikipedia articles. The change I was inspired by in the original emails was the ambition of the scope; more people are contributing to OSM and more people are using the services (through third parties, often without realising) - I want to see the OSMF utilise this growth to benefit the membership. We can be inspirational drivers of this technology and contribution method - we can build the best map of the world - without monopolising services.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br>That's the sort of thing I want to see from the Board and this, I argue, would take leadership that some of the candidates were offering. I tried to convey that sort of attitude a couple of years ago, but either people didn't want to hear it, or from me, or they were put off by my previous experience.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Cheers, Joseph<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"> </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 5 December 2017 at 14:19, Simon Poole <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:simon@poole.ch" target="_blank">simon@poole.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Josph<br>
</p><span class="gmail-">
<div class="gmail-m_-6588703543989630269moz-cite-prefix">Am 05.12.2017 um 14:36 schrieb Joseph
Reeves:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would argue that many consumers are accessing OSM via
one of the professional geodata providers: These providers
are providing, professionally, OpenStreetMap data. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
You don't need to argue that, because it is clearly the case, -by
design-.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>..<br>
</div><span class="gmail-">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't believe there will be a breakdown, there just
won't be the realisation of potential. I'm hoping the future
Board, and any others beyond that, will release the
potential of OSM in ways that we haven't even started to
dream about yet.</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that you want
to change the business model OSM has working in, since OSM as we
know it (aka 2007) exists, to a model more Wikipedia like. That is
not a new discussion (and I've blogged about this before), but
nobody has seriously proposed it for a long time, likely because:<br>
<ul>
<li>the model with OSM not providing end user services and leaving
lots of space for third parties, commercial and other, to
provides services based OSM data has been very successful: we're
still around and for many things are by far the best open
dataset that exists.<br>
</li>
<li>while we could easily put the map related parts of Mapbox,
Mapzen, Graphhopper, HOT etc out of business, it is rather
unlikely that we could do that for google, Here and Tomtom (well
maybe I should move them to the first group :-)). In other words
it is rather unlikely that we would achieve the de facto
monopoly status WP has and without that it is very unlikely that
we would be able to achieve the revenue necessary to operate the
whole thing (as in a couple of $100 million).</li>
</ul>
<p>Now historically we've shied away from providing anything "google
maps" like on <a href="http://openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">openstreetmap.org</a>, feature creep has naturally still
led to that happening a bit, mainly because there was this notion
of a large player taking our data and providing this all singing
and dancing g-maps competitor. That hasn't happened and is rather
unlikely to in the future, with Mapquest really being the only
company that made motions in that direction giving up two years
back. So maybe we should reconsider that aspect, but finding
funding for a google competitor that is just going to burn money
in an endless fashion is rather a hard sell (not saying that it is
totally impossible, just hard).</p>
<p>Personally I would prefer the OSMF doing what it is actually
tasked with, supporting the contributors and improving the
infrastructure for us.</p><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<p>Simon<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</font></span><blockquote type="cite"><span class="gmail-">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers, Joseph</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 5 December 2017 at 13:23, Martin
Koppenhoefer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com" target="_blank">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span>2017-12-05 14:12 GMT+01:00, Joseph Reeves <<a href="mailto:iknowjoseph@gmail.com" target="_blank">iknowjoseph@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
>> once a group takes on responsibility for
providing reliable services at a<br>
>> global scale,<br>
>> with industries of small, medium, and global
businesses depending on the<br>
>> underlying infrastructure and millions of
contributors, amateur<br>
>> structures<br>
>> break down.<br>
><br>
><br>
> This is something I agree with, although I wouldn't
have been able to<br>
> make the points in the two emails as eloquently
myself.<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>If this were true, why are people choosing OSM and
not one of the<br>
professional geodata providers? OSM was founded in 2004 and
has since<br>
been managed by amateurs, why is it still operating and not
"broken<br>
down"? Or is it broken down, and I just don't see it? Or is
the<br>
breakdown imminent?<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Martin<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="gmail-m_-6588703543989630269mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</span><span class="gmail-"><pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
osmf-talk mailing list
<a class="gmail-m_-6588703543989630269moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="gmail-m_-6588703543989630269moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a>
</pre>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
osmf-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.<wbr>org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>