<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><tt>i agree with Kathleen here, we don't need their junk POIs.
Actually we shouldn't have anything to do with companies that
uses OSM the way they do without complying with the license and
OSMF guidelines. This is still to be taken into consideration <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-June/082653.html">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-June/082653.html</a><br>
</tt></p>
<p><tt>About this lovely OSMF corporate member, 9 months since i
asked <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-June/082702.html">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2019-June/082702.html</a>
them to fix attribution and they are still attributing OSM maps
to HERE. a round of applause for this outstanding support and
example of OSM data usage by an OSMF member. <br>
</tt></p>
<p><tt>Video capture of app their Local app <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.facebook.com/local/">https://www.facebook.com/local/</a>
(i meant to say "my contributions", not "my attributions" during
the video capturing): <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://youtu.be/Ah9FyiT6JKk">https://youtu.be/Ah9FyiT6JKk</a><br>
</tt></p>
<p><tt>My contributions on OSM displayed on the video</tt><tt><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448052037#map=17/32.64575/-16.90531">
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448052037#map=17/32.64575/-16.90531</a></tt></p>
<p><tt>Cable car <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25975745">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25975745</a></tt></p>
<p><tt>HERE map at same location </tt><tt><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://wego.here.com/?map=32.64615,-16.90117,17,public_transport">https://wego.here.com/?map=32.64615,-16.90117,17,public_transport</a></tt></p>
<p><tt>Feel free to check your location and your edits on OSM being
credited to HERE and share them here (i mean on the mailing
list, not HERE).</tt><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Às 17:35 de 01/08/2019, Kathleen Lu via
talk escreveu:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFekdnCYp=YUsbzumXjEf7WZCkaJp61ub8GGeHWxXm8ejVbP6g@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">I don't think it's disingenuous at all for Facebook
to use their own POIs instead of OSM's. Wasn't the whole point
of the Collective Databases principle and the Collective
Databases Guideline specifically to enable this type of usage,
so that those interested in OSM did not have to make an "all or
nothing" choice? </div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:17
PM Joseph Eisenberg <<a
href="mailto:joseph.eisenberg@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">joseph.eisenberg@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Besides
the tech boosterism, another issue is that it's disingenuous<br>
if Facebook claims to be strongly supporting OSM, while
continuing to<br>
keep their valuable user-provided data in a separate,
proprietary<br>
database.<br>
<br>
Facebook and Google have the two best lists of POIs like shops
and<br>
restaurants, and an extensive database of customer photos and
reviews<br>
which they control. While Facebook has decided to use OSM for
road,<br>
street and waterway data (which they couldn't easily have
users add),<br>
they keep this data for themselves. Were Facebook interested
in<br>
improving OSM, they could share their POI data, including when
a<br>
feature was last visited and notes about which feature no
longer<br>
exist. This could add millions more OSM contributors for
features like<br>
shops and restaurants, which are not yet completely mapped
even in<br>
well-developed OSM communities in Europe, and it would be<br>
revolutionary in Indonesia and Thailand.<br>
<br>
Only a few people will every become hobby mappers, adding
waterways,<br>
highways, landuse and such for fun, but every business owner
wants to<br>
see their shop or office on Facebook, so these POIs would be
added and<br>
kept up-to-date by users.<br>
<br>
I don't expect Facebook to share this data for free, because a
large<br>
part of their business model is recording your geodata and
using this<br>
to maximize profit for their shareholders, but if they ever
decide to<br>
really prove "we're not that evil", sharing their data could
go a long<br>
way to changing Facebooks poor reputation for corporate
responsibility<br>
and transparency.<br>
<br>
Joseph<br>
<br>
On 8/1/19, stevea <<a
href="mailto:steveaOSM@softworkers.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">steveaOSM@softworkers.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> (I chose the wrong source email address; apologies if
anybody gets this<br>
> twice).<br>
><br>
> Thanks, Jóhannes. I did try FB's tool myself and was
pleasantly surprised<br>
> it does a "looks OK for now" job of how Mikel put it
earlier: "a balance<br>
> between turbocharged and exploitation." I hear you as
you say that<br>
> <a href="http://mapwith.ai" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">mapwith.ai</a> has,
as I described, a comfortable workflow of "AI suggests,<br>
> human maps, human checks that what is acceptable can be
uploaded, human<br>
> uploads." That's fine, it does indeed have "a human in
the loop" and the<br>
> human checks for quality, the human is not just being
there for the sake of<br>
> being there. This aspect of "humans, not AI, determine
quality" is a<br>
> critical component of what I am saying.<br>
><br>
> What I believe raised ire here was the BBC botching the
"press announcement"<br>
> as a stilted and seemingly uninformed "cheerleading"
piece that made AI<br>
> sound as if it were a "magic bullet" that was going to
save mapping in OSM<br>
> somehow. It isn't (magic) and it won't (though AI is an
important tool<br>
> going forward, especially as it is coupled with human
wisdom and a hawkish<br>
> eye towards high quality). OSM is, and will always be, a<br>
> human-participating project, with all of the social and
"get outdoors and<br>
> map" project as one (human) might like it to be. AI can
and does help,<br>
> that's fine, as long as humans are always "in charge."<br>
><br>
> Again, it sounds like there is a lot of agreement here.<br>
><br>
> SteveA<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> talk mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>