[Talk-GB] Capitalising on the media attention

[John Baker]

What an exciting time with all the news about Openstreetmap in the press and online (Gizmodo, Reddit, The Guardian, etc).

This has led to a increase in users (our busiest day ever in terms of contributor editing the map apparently) and overall interest in OSM. It is a good start to the year.

However whenever anything gets news on the Internet there is negative as well as positive comments posted. I find looking at loads of comments about OSM (it even inspired me to sign up to the Guardian site to post (I still feel dirty about owning a Guardian account...)) give a nice barometer (despite the signal to noise ratio) about the feeling about OSM. 
And with anything like this the negative posts I think can give the most insight.

Some of these complaints were raised on Richard Fairhurst's recent blog post http://blog.systemed.net/post/7 and prompted me to write this.

Although the post is about the attribution for OSM (something I imagine most of us agree should be used) I think the dismissive  about the points raised and I don't want to single him out I have heard it before from other OSMers in the past.

How do others see OSM?
Most see it as the map at openstreetmap.org We know it is more than that and is about the data but the majority of complaints are really about the website.

Lets look at a few comments

“The world doesn't need yet another mapping provider. What's OSM got? 
Some raw mapping data, which quite frankly is useless without a top 
notch front end to put it to use.” 
I agree we could do with a slicker front end.

 “It really needs a travel route 
feature, or if there is one it needs to be more obvious. Most of my 
Google Maps use is looking at times and distances between cities using 
various routes.”
We have been crying out for routing on osm.org for years.

 “Google Maps is incredibly easy to use and is useful. 
I'd love to use OSM if it was as nice of an experience.”
Although I don't think the new Google Maps is that easy to use. I agree that is OSM we "nicer" more people would use more of OSM.

 “So basically 
if I want directions from point A to point B, I should continue using 
Google Maps, and there's no reason for me to be interested in either 
using or helping OSM.”
Again back to routing on osm.org

 “I just noticed Google Map Maker is finally 
available in my area. I don't see changing stuff in OSM to be any useful
 to me.” 
Well not much to say to that some will never move from Google.

And one that I saw was long Reddit chat about a user that typed Bakery into search box for a zoomed in map of his city in the US and the search displayed results in the Ukraine. Seach in zoomed area would be a great addition IMHO.

And another about making edits and then not "appearing" on the map. 

I take a different view from Richards stance and think they are needed.

But what worried me is that thought the osm.org should not have routing, better cartography, etc (I know imagery and streetview will be nearly impossible to have decent quality) for the fear that commercial entities might not like it!

Is that what others think here?

I think that is a worrying stance (and frankly ungrounded as what other map data will they use instead FOSM?) and will stifle our own site and future creativity. Personally I would even go as far having official OSM mobile apps - the whole Internet is changing to go mobile now and will increase in future I think we will be left behind if we do not and fear of unsettling commercial entities one of the reason we do not this. Has anyone actually tried to look on OSM wiki for a good mobile phone app....pick from 1 to 100.

(It reminds me of American news channels not running certain critical news stories about corps as they might pull their ad revenue) 

At least I know the real reason for Andy Allan not doing osm carto commits....lack of time, yeah, yeah....

Cheers,

John



 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20140116/4d02d4d5/attachment.html>