[Osmf-talk] wish list to osmf board

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Tue Dec 5 14:19:08 UTC 2017

Hi Josph

Am 05.12.2017 um 14:36 schrieb Joseph Reeves:
> I would argue that many consumers are accessing OSM via one of the
> professional geodata providers: These providers are providing,
> professionally, OpenStreetMap data.

You don't need to argue that, because it is clearly the case, -by design-.

> ..
> I don't believe there will be a breakdown, there just won't be the
> realisation of potential. I'm hoping the future Board, and any others
> beyond that, will release the potential of OSM in ways that we haven't
> even started to dream about yet.

If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that you want to
change the business model OSM has working in, since OSM as we know it
(aka 2007) exists, to a model more Wikipedia like. That is not a new
discussion (and I've blogged about this before), but nobody has
seriously proposed it for a long time, likely because:

  * the model with OSM not providing end user services and leaving lots
    of space for third parties, commercial and other, to provides
    services based OSM data has been very successful: we're still around
    and for many things are by far the best open dataset that exists.
  * while we could easily put the map related parts of Mapbox, Mapzen,
    Graphhopper, HOT etc out of business, it is rather unlikely that we
    could do that for google, Here and Tomtom (well maybe I should move
    them to the first group :-)). In other words it is rather unlikely
    that we would achieve the de facto monopoly status WP has and
    without that it is very unlikely that we would be able to achieve
    the revenue necessary to operate the whole thing (as in a couple of
    $100 million).

Now historically we've shied away from providing anything "google maps"
like on openstreetmap.org, feature creep has naturally still led to that
happening a bit, mainly because there was this notion of a large player
taking our data and providing this all singing and dancing g-maps
competitor.  That hasn't happened and is rather unlikely to in the
future, with Mapquest really being the only company that made motions in
that direction giving up two years back. So maybe we should reconsider
that aspect, but finding funding for a google competitor that is just
going to burn money in an endless fashion is rather a hard sell (not
saying that it is totally impossible, just hard).

Personally I would prefer the OSMF doing what it is actually tasked
with, supporting the contributors and improving the infrastructure for us.


> Cheers, Joseph
> On 5 December 2017 at 13:23, Martin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     2017-12-05 14:12 GMT+01:00, Joseph Reeves <iknowjoseph at gmail.com
>     <mailto:iknowjoseph at gmail.com>>:
>     >> once a group takes on responsibility for providing reliable
>     services at a
>     >> global scale,
>     >> with industries of small, medium, and global businesses
>     depending on the
>     >> underlying infrastructure and millions of contributors, amateur
>     >> structures
>     >> break down.
>     >
>     >
>     > This is something I agree with, although I wouldn't have been
>     able to
>     > make the points in the two emails as eloquently myself.
>     If this were true, why are people choosing OSM and not one of the
>     professional geodata providers? OSM was founded in 2004 and has since
>     been managed by amateurs, why is it still operating and not "broken
>     down"? Or is it broken down, and I just don't see it? Or is the
>     breakdown imminent?
>     Cheers,
>     Martin
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20171205/aca81d4a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20171205/aca81d4a/attachment.sig>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list