blackadderajr at gmail.com
Tue Dec 20 11:49:19 UTC 2011
SteveCoast [mailto:steve at asklater.com] wrote:
> Sent: 20 December 2011 11:13
> To: Tom Hughes
> Cc: osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] site
> On Dec 20, 2011, at 4:10 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > On 20/12/11 11:09, SteveCoast wrote:
> >> Did this go through any review from anyone? I remember there used to
> be a process for accepting layers.
> > The layer was proposed to OWG and was considered by them against the
> policy guidelines set by SWG and documented in the wiki.
> Ok Tom. Did this meeting happen in the pub?
This is where we start to run into problems. I'm very happy to see lots of
different renderings of OSM data, whether from commercial companies or
other. However in my view it becomes a problem for those viewing us from
outside the OSM community to understand our identity, effectively it dilutes
the message we wish to get across. Part of our problem is trying to kill two
birds with the same stone, that of encouraging interest and contribution and
at the same time encouraging interest and data use. For many years we
focused quite rightly on the former and basically stuck two fingers up to
the latter, those wishing to use the data. I admit I encouraged this view,
in the early years we didn't have enough data or resource to support those
saying gimme gimme gimme. Now we are in a different position. We need to
encourage and support both camps.
Back a few Planets ago when a page redesign was first actively discussed
there was much debate about http://www.remote.org/frederik/tmp/osm3col/
I still feel that there is a need to place an umbrella over the various
components of the site (map views, Wiki and other documentation, and all the
social/communication tools we might want). The umbrella is our opportunity
to "sell" our ideas and ideals as a project to the different types of people
who would visit us. Thus I'd still very much like to encourage a development
of this idea thrown into the fray.
More information about the osmf-talk