[Osmf-talk] logo update

[SteveCoast]

You've gone off the charts Fred. By your logic none of us should be using Wikipedia since they are used by the masses and have all kind of efforts to make things easier. Is Wikipedia "belittling and discounting" to you? Is wikipedia a "whore to the mass market"?

I'm curious if you use some ultra anarchic Wikipedia splinter group site?

Steve

On Dec 19, 2011, at 6:39 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 12/19/2011 01:57 PM, SteveCoast wrote:
>> Yes, and they do. Id prefer them to use osm. I'm not sure what your point is.
> 
> My point is that you're in the process of belittling and discounting everything that *I* hold dear about OSM. To me, the important bits about OSM is that we are not "just maps", we are a community of equals who together make something that is free and open, data ever can use, open source software that everyone can simply install and use - THESE are the points that I find important about OSM.
> 
> What you are doing here - with "you" I mean yourself and, from reading the minutes of the last OSMF F2F meeting, at least some similar-minded OSMF board members - is, you start out with the premise that you outline above: "I'd prefer that [the masses] use OSM." - From this follows automatically that we have to become like a big mass market map provider, we have to pour resources into ease of use, we have to make sure we have a well-armed communication team and if at all possible an army of drones on Twitter & Co who make sure we are "seen".
> 
> Mailing lists are ugly cupboards of times long gone, where ugly dissenting community members can spray their poison. The fact that our data comes under a free and open license - somthing that all of us are spending a terrible amount of blood sweat & tears with right now - should best not be mentioned in the first two paragraphs of anything about OpenStreetMap because, hey, the masses would just be confused by that, right? And anyway, Open Source is overrated (and a member of SWG has only recently said that maybe "our software is open source" should not be among OSM's core principles because who knows what the future holds).
> 
> By trying to be a whore to the mass market, you are at the same time pissing on what I perceive to be the core strengths and values of the project. All that I hold dear about OSM is suddenly something that should not be mentioned upfront because it might confuse the casual Google user whom we want to win over. Everything that I find important about OSM is discounted by you as something that would only appeal to a few nerdy "ultra techinical map geeks".
> 
> This is not something that manifests itself in a logo - we all know it is near impossible to illustrate a concept like "open data" in a logo. But the words you choose, your attitude seems to be "let's do whatever it takes to make people use OSM" and this is just not something that I agree with.
> 
> If someone is perfectly happy with Google, then let them continue to use Google. We don't have to compete with Google on their level. There are things that are *unique* to OSM and it is those that make us interesting. Those who are not interested in the points that make us special, but who are looking for "just a map" - they may use OSM if they want, but we shouldn't go out of our way to cater for them.
> 
> But this is exactly what you (=Steve+OSMF board) are doing - trying to somehow make OSM into "just a map" for the mass market. I understand what your point is, but I don't understand why.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"