<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; "><pre>if (*ra4 != 0xffc78948) { return false; }</pre></span></div></span>
</div>
<br><div><div>On 30 Dec 2011, at 15:57, Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Serge Wroclawski <<a href="mailto:emacsen@gmail.com">emacsen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">I agree wholeheartedly with the view that OSM should be providing<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">maps. I think as long as we continue to cling to this idea that we<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">want third parties to make the maps, then we limit the project's<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">viability, its success and its overall accuracy.<br></blockquote><br>I've allready express my own opinion, but i do not really understand the<br>point.<br><br>OSM hosted one rendering on its own server (using mapnik software)... Do<br>you want OSM to provide other maps (with different rendering) ?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sure – and we already do, e.g. OpenCycleMap the transport map, the osmarenderer layer, etc.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>I assume that what you want is OSM to provide a service without limit<br>for other to use their tile server as base ?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not at all – though I can imagine that we could make some cash by offering to serve tiles to people if they pay for our hardware/bandwidth, plus a bit. Ofc, this requires quite a major investment in people to run it, so it's probably not immediately possible right now.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>I feel very unconfortable with this option. Managing a tile server has a<br>cost (OSMF handle it now) and this cost goes higher has many user use<br>it. We see actual limitation this summer (limited bandwidth).<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree, providing unlimited tile data to unlimited numbers of people, for free is clearly not a reasonable option. The status quo works pretty well though.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>So their is here 2 options :</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>1. providing a free service open to everyone with no limits (google<br>competitor to summurize) that will be adapt to demand (more power, more<br>RAM...) so more cost every user use it.<br>To handle cost there is 2 options : keep the service free (more<br>donation, more money from ?)or made the service commercial (big users<br>pay, this is what google is providing). This will require adding an API<br>key (like google, bing or cloudmade).<br><br>2. providing a basic service for small users (as it's now) and limit big<br>usage without providing an laternative and let commercial compagny<br>(cloudmade or openstreetmap has start this) providing services for big<br>users.<br><br>Note that option 1 has a terrible issue : been a competitor to<br>commercial compagny that would do business with OSM data...<br></div></blockquote><div>Is that a terrible issue? If a company is offering OSM with no added value on top of it, why do we care about competing with them? If they're doing a better job than us, and make it financially unviable for us to do it, then all the better – we can stop worrying about this problem.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>My opinion is that OSM should provide a basic service (as now) without<br>commercial issue (option 2). Big users should build their own tile<br>servers or buy this service from commercial compagny : it's not OSM<br>business (OSM is not in business).<br></div></blockquote><div>There's no reason why it can't be run like one though – charities and philanthropic organisations usually are for one very good reason – it gives them sustainability.</div></div><br><div>Note – I have no problem with carrying on with 2 either for now, or indefinitely. What I don't think is a good option though is option 3 that some people seem to be kicking about – that is, drop all rendered output to users or people considering what they can do with OSM, and instead concentrate on just having a huge database.</div><div><br></div><div>Tom Davie</div></body></html>