[Strategic] 2012

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

    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 
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes#Strategic_Working_Group 
if there had been any more recent minutes/logs than 2nd December 2012.)

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?

(Is SWG looking for an one-fits-all definition of "suitable" or is it 
possible that different tile services are "suitable" for different users?)

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?

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"?

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?

Bye
Frederik