[Osmf-talk] logo update

Matt Amos matt at asklater.com
Mon Dec 19 20:15:17 UTC 2011


On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Dermot McNally <dermotm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> You are not obliged to go our of your way to cater for them. You are,
> however, not entitled to prevent others from so doing. Many of us -
> and remember, I've indicated that I for one also want to see a strong
> community - believe that with more users of "maps" or other products
> based on OSM we will also see a stronger community. Maybe we are
> wrong. It is reasonable to have a mature discussion on that level. It
> is _not_ reasonable to accuse people of bad faith, and right now I'm
> feeling so-accused and would dearly love to know what my crime is.

i think the point that frederik was trying to make is that changing
the site to not advertise the freedoms, diversity and community that
we all value in OSM would be to lose something special. one of the
strengths of OSM is that we have, to use a phrase, "more than just
streets" and therefore maybe having a pushpin as part of our logo
would be selling ourselves short; on a par with other maps for which
pushpins are a crutch to mask the unavailability of rich vector data.
however, this must be balanced with any advantages that the "icon
recognition" of a pushpin or globe (generic as they may be) might
bring. the decision will be a tough one, which i am sure will not be
taken lightly.

>> 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.
>
> And right there is the accusation. We are supposedly attempting to
> reduce OSM to a lesser thing. I understand what you're saying too -
> and I too "don't understand why" you would say it, because it simply
> isn't true.

i think this may be all a big misunderstanding, and we can all calm
down :-) at the last board meeting one of our themes was "the most
used map in the world" and this has, i think, been misinterpreted as
"we want to directly compete with google and therefore we must look
and act like google and hide the things which make us better". i don't
think this was the intention - one of the ways to become the most used
map would be if google used our data and pointed those interested in
editing to us.

there also seems to be a perception that in order to make the OSM site
more usable for those who have not yet joined the community it will be
necessary to make it less usable for the existing community. i agree
that making it more usable for both groups is harder than for either
group alone, but i don't agree that it's impossible. it is important,
though, that people arriving at the site get (or already have) the
impression that this is something they want to be a part of, and for
many this will mean it has to be useful for them.

cheers,

matt




More information about the osmf-talk mailing list