mikel_maron at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 2 20:38:34 GMT 2012
Would anyone be willing to compile together the discussion from the thread, and the irc chat, into a rough draft 2012 plan for SWG?
For the things that don't seem to be settled yet, it would be totally cool to highlight the field of play on the issue.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
> From: Mikel Maron <mikel_maron at yahoo.com>
>To: Dermot McNally <dermotm at gmail.com>; Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
>Cc: "strategic at openstreetmap.org" <strategic at openstreetmap.org>
>Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 10:29 AM
>Subject: Re: [Strategic] 2012
>Hi ... IRC log attached. Will upload to wiki soon, but swamped right now.
>* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>> From: Dermot McNally <dermotm at gmail.com>
>>To: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
>>Cc: strategic at openstreetmap.org
>>Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 8:38 AM
>>Subject: Re: [Strategic] 2012
>>I'll try to address your questions:
>>On 30 January 2012 08:32, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>>> who was present in Friday's IRC meeting?
>>> (Not wanting to nag since I know minutes are a pain, but I would have
>>> checked myself on
>>> if there had been any more recent minutes/logs than 2nd December 2012.)
>>Firstly on the apparent minutes backlog - what that in fact represents
>>is a meeting backlog, as SWG hadn't got back into the habit of meeting
>>since the Christmas break. Not ideal, but it's worth being clear that
>>there has not been a batch of unminuted meetings.
>>As to the attendees, I have neither a firm list nor a complete IRC
>>transcript. Mikel chaired, but it took him 10 minutes
after the usual
>>start time to get a reaction from other participants (that was when I
>>spotted that there was in fact activity), during which time he had
>>begun to compose his Friday email, which he intended to send in lieu
>>of the meeting, so that the next meeting could take place in the
>>framework of a planned list of topics, seeded by his email and
>>enriched by contributions from others.
>>It may be that Mikel has the IRC transcript and could post it as a
>>"best set" of minutes, but in effect, after our late start with a
>>small group, we resolved instead to discuss those items that we felt
>>should be on agenda for SWG in 2012. I agreed to send my followup mail
>>by way of communicating the matters discussed at the meeting.
>>Participants who were certainly present: Me, Mikel, apmon, TomH.
>>Others please shout if I have overlooked you. Mikel, do you have the
>>complete transcript? I have only the very tail end which
>>happened still to have in his buffer.
>>> On 01/30/12 00:55, Dermot McNally wrote:
>>>> Arising once again because of the switch2osm campaign: Confront the
>>>> issue of where users wishing to use OSM instead of other providers
>>>> should get their services. Base assumption (also for discussion): That
>>>> there should be suitable map services for such users, that it should
>>>> be a strategic goal to ensure this become so. This is without
>>>> prejudice to the question of who should operate the services.
>>> I have difficulty in parsing the above.
>>> Is there already a definition of what is "suitable", or is defining the
>>> "suitability" something that is part of SWG's role? If the latter, is there
>>> already an idea of what is "suitable" or is this copletely open?
>>Completely open, including the definition of suitability. Both
>>list item and switch2osm arise out of the (granted not universal in
>>the project) principle that we want end users to use our data instead
>>of other map data, among other reasons, because we see that as
>>demonstrating relevance in ways that will attract a bigger and more
>>So in accepting this into the SWG plan for the year, we are resolving
>>to consider this issue, with all possible outcomes open, including the
>>possibility that we will decide that nothing new needs to be done.
>>> (Is SWG looking for an one-fits-all definition of "suitable" or is it
>>> possible that different tile services are "suitable" for different users?)
>>Granted it hasn't been discussed yet, just accepted as a topic, but
>>I'll peep into my own crystal ball and suggest that not only different
>>tile servers will prove important, but also different data extraction
>>services, search engines, geocoders, routing
>>slippy map embedders, whatever. If other map services are providing
>>them and end users rely on them, we should be considering whether the
>>OSM world does, should or could offer them too.
>>> Would that then mean that SWG would evaulate whether the services already
>>> listed on http://switch2osm.org/providers/ are "suitable", and if it is
>>> found they are not, endeavour to create "suitable" services?
>>I'd be more cautious and go with "cause/encourage to be created". But
>>certainly, if a service doesn't exist and we come to the conclusion
>>that it ought to, that does identify a vacuum that it becomes our task
>>to see filled.
>>> Does "it should be a strategic goal to ensure this *become* so" mean that an
>>> evaluation has already been made and the existing services have been found
>>> to be not "suitable"?
>>No, no evaluation has been made, and this would need to feature in
>>we address the issue. Informally, it does seem like an awful lot of
>>users are not finding an OSM solution to their problem in spaces where
>>it seems like they could be helped, though.
>>> Is "the existing services are good enough and the market is going to do the
>>> rest" still a possible outcome of the analysis, or have SWG already decided
>>> that OSMF needs to either operate their own commercial tileserver or
>>> contract someone to do so?
>>The former is still a possible outcome - albeit, probably with a lot
>>more provision of information to end-users, in the spirit of
>>Igaühel on siin oma laul
>>ja ma oma ei leiagi üles
>>Strategic mailing list
>>Strategic at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Strategic