[OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open

[Tobias Knerr]

Dair Grant wrote:
> showcasing useful and innovative things that have been done with
> OSM data is more important than trying to split ourselves into "open" (terms
> and conditions will apply) and not.

If it is there to show what can be done with OSM data, it does a very
poor job. The only thing it shows is an inferior Google Map clone:
pre-rendered tiles that cannot even be configured or modified in any
meaningful way. It doesn't help to demonstrate the the advantages of
having access to raw map *data* at all.

In order to truly show what's possible, we would need to completely
redesign that front page into a "featured products" catalogue that could
list routing applications, Garmin converters, OSM clocks, renderers,
paper maps and so on. This would, of course, include "closed" applications.

As it is, that page doesn't really serve the purpose of presenting OSM
products. Instead, it presents OSM data *itself* - with features such as
changeset list, data layer, XML export, etc.. And for that purpose, we
don't need "closed" rendering styles.

Tobias Knerr