[Osmf-talk] Data Was: Re: Tiles

[steveaOSM]

See, I was hoping it would head towards "half full" before it trended towards "nearly empty."  I was hoping part of the discussion (and it still can) might be "OK, what must we do to get this more towards 70/30 or 60/40?"  There are numbers where heads nod and people conclude "this is sustainable."   Or "we can do this for three more years, but we should be at 75/25 by 2025" or some such; I'm spitballing here.

This is not fun and games, it is most certainly quite serious.  Though, there are "cool heads" who, when presented with thoughtful options, say "let's head over in this/these direction(s)."  We are tossing out both serious numbers (sincere thanks for your analysis, Steve, I do believe it sparks conversation!) as well as pondering options.  Some might feel like we have our backs up against a wall and "better do something different, and SOON!" although I don't feel that way.  I'm listening, really.

We have OSM "at all" because it is your genius creation for there to be a wonderful "geographic data commons."  People (myself included) love it, and we nurture it and grow it, with wonderful positive effects.  What we don't want is a "tragedy of this commons," as we all know what happens then.  So, good "husbandry" of this wild animal of a global mapping project (things usually known as "management" or maybe "foundation management") exist.  We grow, we talk amongst ourselves, we make changes when/as necessary, we improve.  We're a "fully mature," sort of "young adult" project, and some thoughtfulness, wisdom and guidance is ahead.  We have our eyes open.

> On Jun 4, 2023, at 7:59 PM, Steve Coast <steve at stevecoast.com> wrote:
> 
> Well it’s all fun and games until you ask a sophisticated donor for money. Anyone with half a brain will audit where the money is going, and this won’t fly, assuming my math is correct…. It will be taken as an indicator of general management competence.
> 
> Or we could logically extend your argument, why not make it even more free and have OSM only use 1% of the tiles. Or 0.1%? Why have OSM at all, just make a free tile server as a separate project.
> 
> Best
> 
> Steve
> 
>> On Jun 4, 2023, at 7:50 PM, steveaOSM <steveaOSM at softworkers.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I ponder the "80/20 stats, as stated" and think to myself "that's a fair return."  Those "users" (80%) greatly benefit, yes, though so does OSM as the shining beacon of "taking only 20%" to do so (provide said tiles).  There are a great many ways I (and I believe others) look at that and say "winning."  Those 80% make OSM a resounding success, even prove that we are one.  As "they" win, so does our project.  This is a fully operating feedback loop.
>> 
>> Serving tiles is not free, to be sure.  It is something OSM has invested in and continues to do so (in a variety of technical flavors, and that's good that we do so).  Though as we discuss this (and perhaps think about it on a number of levels), that investment also allows those of use who "use" the other 20% to make the best damn map data on the planet.  Well, either arguably so, or "we're in the running to continue to do so."  Rather well, for nearly two decades.  We shouldn't rest on our laurels, but neither should we diminish the luster we continue to develop as we buff to an incredible shine our data.  There are balances to be struck here, we're not doing terribly.  Can/should we improve, especially as we discuss the short- and medium-term horizons and goals?  Of course.
>> 
>> Those 80% are, to some degree and certainly in a manner of looking at them, heroes of OSM, making our map data useful, interesting map products.  It is what we do and I certainly we don't stop or radically change that.  We might tweak how, we should further discuss how, but people using our data is the sincerest form of flattery.
>