<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Lots of good ideas and conservatism, all for good reasons in this
thread.</p>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""><font size="+1">Sören has identified some points, in his own young rebel-ish style, which concerns many, especially the data consumers and the renderers. And I like his ideas, young and new visions is what drives innovation, brings creativeness and progress.
Some more traditional, conservative or non-database specialist mappers opinions. I also like many of those ideas, free as literally free, any mapper can do whatever he wants, which creates for some chaos, but also has driven OSM for what it is today.
And although I am an ambassador for everything free and open source, it would be not a good tactic to continue a campaign against everything the big companies are doing. In the contrary, they have proven that there commercial inspired "closed source" tactics, have worked, reached masses. In the recent years what we generally see is that they also embraced a concept of more open source politics. I think we should embrace this, use their approaches, embrace them and learn lessons from their successes and failures.
It will be very hard, very likely impossible, to find a consensus between both visions.
My advise would be to look at a solution, incorporating technology that is already gaining world wide support and applications. Incorporate them in an OSM 2.0, with full compatibility to OSM 1.0, the current philosophy.
Let it be clear, I am not a database specialist, I do have yearlong IT related professional experience, but I don't call myself an IT expert. I am a mapper, an OSM contributor and try to be an ambassador for it. SO in the following more technical context I might use some less accurate statements, feel free to shoot at them or correct me.
The technology I am talking about is RDF. The graph database model, based on ontology and data triples.
The OSM database backend is a Conventional SQL data store, PostgreSQL. But we can store triples in a relational database, the technology, with translators, schema etc... is already there, developed and used. Even more, RDF is (or is becoming) a W3C standard. The base for the new semantic web, isn't OSM the semantic web for the mapping world of applications ?
OSM 2.0 could just be a parallel triples store in our database. Established tagging (thru the guidleines) will have their equivalent in the triples store. Even competing schemes can have their place their, like landcover/landuse versus natural/landuse.
But it can exist next to the completely open and free model we have at this time, with all it's non-structured quirks, abandoned, freely invented or consensus tagging.
Database consumers or renderers have the free choice, use OSM 1.0 or OSM 2.0, where 2.0 comes at a much lower cost. Supported triples are defined in a flexible but clearly defined ontology/schema. Every consensus tag has it's RDF reference and integration described in it's corresponding wiki page.
Mappers who want their tag to be integrated in the RDF model, used by database consumers or renders, will be "forced" to comply with the schema.
I believe this could be the future, not only to sustain our initial freedoms, but also as the future for a more usable OSM, a tool also to better structure our data for documentation, and resolve issues in competing applications and schemes which hinders us from progressing.
I am very keen to know your opinions on this, especially from </font><font size="+1"><font size="+1">Sören.
Greetings,
Bert Araali</font>
</font></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/03/2021 00:41, Jannis Achstetter
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:8a74a804-5ab6-4f7b-2f26-1bfb1d09d99b@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I tend to agree with what Roland Olbricht wrote.
However, I would like to answer to the "roadmap" below. Yes, the
majority of people don't care what Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Google, bla,
bla are doing. I do care. I don't use Facebook and WhatsApp, I don't
have any closed-source Google-Apps on my Smartphone and it's my choice
not to use Apple's products.
It's not always true that a minority cannot change anything. As you
said, OSM "creators" / "contributors" might not be too many people. But
think about how the world of open map data would look like if OSM had
not been started in the first place.
And this is why I want OSM to be as open as possible. I do want to be
able to invent tags that no one yet uses. This is how OSM started: There
were no rules on which tags exist. People started inventing them
whenever they thought it makes sense to have this information in OSM.
And slowly, schemes and "most commonly used tags" were worked out. If
someone wants to tag feature XYZ in the future, let them :) Even if this
information is not used at the moment, we might be happy to have it at
some point of time.
Jannis
Am 16.03.21 um 16:41 schrieb Sören Reinecke via talk:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">then they are in breach of our license, because everybody interacting
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">with a work based on OpenStreetMap data must be made aware that the data
is from openstreetmap and available under the odbl.
It is not about proper attribution, it is the fact that most people
(Mainstream) do not care. But that is getting off topic.
_Let me give you a roadmap:_
Facebook brought WhatsApp and will now combine WhatsApp user data with
Facebook user data. Reaction from Mainstream: I don't care, not even
about my own property.
Google & other Smartphone OS vendors disallow the removal of so-called
"system apps". Reaction from Mainstream: I don't care because I like
dictatorship
And since my E-Mail app is a system app and gets no updates anymore
(modern e-mail providers begin to change their login systems), I have
just another unusable app on my phone costing me space.
Apple traps you in there ******** universe of no standardization and bad
practice. Reaction from Mainstream: I don't care, please let me be hostage.
Amazon does not pay taxes. Reaction from Mainstream: I don't care, I
will support them anyway no matter what they do.
Lieferando runs shadow websites. That's literally speaking faking real
existing websites. That's legal and also supported by issuers of SSL
certificates. Reaction from Mainstream: I don't care, I let them trick me.
.
.
.
So why should the Mainstream be interested in the source of the data
they use. Most don't even care about their own data :(
Only a small portion of open-minded people mainly organized in
Communities will care and notice the great work we have done. Most
people will "just don't care" and raising awareness won't get the
desired effect (yet).
That is sad but the Mainstream is like that. Humanity is weak
On 16.03.21 14:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">then they are in breach of our license, because everybody interacting with a work based on OpenStreetMap data must be made aware that the data is from openstreetmap and available under the odbl.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<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>
<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>