[OSM-talk] Things People Say

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 12/30/11 15:37, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> Let's remember that Frederik believes that not everyone should be a
> map contributor, that there's value in a high bar for contribution.

I thought that this thread was about being more consumer friendly in 
terms of providing ready-made maps, not in terms of soliciting edits.

Both are orthogonal. You could have a consumer friendly ready-made maps 
department and a high bar to editing at the same time; and you could 
have it the other way round. This thread is wide-spread already, and the 
argument about whom we should attract as editors and why is different 
from how we should represent ourselves. I cannot see why you would bring 
it up here, other than try to discredit my position?

In fact, many of those arguing for OSM becoming a nice map portal 
haven't even touched the subject of editing in their argument.

> This reminds me a lot of the early Debian arguments:   "Linux can't be
> for the masses" turned into "I like compiling my own kernel and we
> should have a high bar for contribution."
>
> Fast forward five years, and I'm using Ubuntu.

Me too. But let's not kid ourselves: Ubuntu is the nice packaging of 
data/software provided by others. This is of course an 
oversimplification but by and large, Ubuntu is a very good example of a 
project that has added pretty packaging, user friendliness, and a help 
desk to things that have been there before.

If you install software on Ubuntu and it doesn't work and you are clever 
enough to provide a patch, then that patch will usually get through to 
the upstream software. You don't use Ubuntu *instead* of free software; 
you use the Ubuntu packaging. Free software has not been made obsolete 
by Ubuntu (even Debian stuff is re-used in Ubuntu).

And this is a good way to work - someone has seen that the making of the 
software and the consumer side are different, and need different 
specialists, even different projects.

> I agree wholeheartedly with the view that OSM should be providing
> maps. I think as long as we continue to cling to this idea that we
> want third parties to make the maps, then we limit the project's
> viability, its success and its overall accuracy.

I think this discussion has gone a little out of hand and maybe it 
should be repeated in another form, at another time.

First of all, one would have to define the exact difference between "OSM 
is providing maps" and "another project is providing maps". Why exactly 
would OSM have to provide maps; is it because we think we would gain 
something from it - more visibility, more sponsors perhaps? And if so, 
would that advantage not be nullified by the resources that offering 
those maps consumes, and would it not be a better organisational 
structure overall if there were two separate entities? Even if we all 
agreed that "someone should do X", and even if we had people standing by 
willing to do the work and even if we had sponsors standing by willing 
to pay the money, would it be ideal for OSM/OSMF to do X?

Secondly, and this touches on something from my "looking forward" post a 
few days ago, we have always made it clear that there are no official 
tags and no official list and no promise that anything gets rendered 
anywhere. This has many advantages, decoupling editing from rendering, 
and brings many freedoms, but if we were to push that "one true map" or 
maybe these "ten true maps" and try to be the map portal for everyone 
then that would be the end of saying "well the Mapnik map is just a 
showcase and you cannot expect us to render everything". We would 
clearly make a much stronger bond between editing and rendering; fewer 
and fewer people would be willing to map things that are not on our main 
map(s), and we'd be pushing specialist maps to the sidelines. Let's not 
kid ourselves: Competing with Google Maps *will* make us more like 
Google Maps.

> I hope strongly that the view will change, that the OSMF board will
> reflect this view. I've seen a slight shift already in the time I've
> been with the project. There's far more room for discussion on the
> point than there was just a few years ago, but I'm also worried that
> the strong beliefs of respected core project members like Frederik
> have driven away those who care about the project, but don't share the
> same views.

If I may paraphrase: "Sadly, there are some fossils like Fred who are 
trying to chase away well-meaning people who share his passion for OSM 
but have different views. Luckily, these fossils are losing influence 
and things will become better."

The question is: How much of a fossil do you have to be? If there's 
someone who cares deeply about OSM but his view is that OSM should place 
paid advertising on its map - would it be too bad if that person were to 
be "driven away" by (borrowing from Kai's posting) a "hostile 
environment"? If there's someone who cares deeply for OSM but believes 
that community is irrelevant and we can just import Open Government data 
from around the world - how much is such "care" worth, and should we not 
praise those who steadfastly refuse that kind of affection?

I believe SWG are having a discussion about "core values" at the moment. 
Suffice it to say: There are core values of this project, and if you 
don't share them than you can care for OSM as much as you want, you're 
in the wrong project. Now what exactly these core values or important 
goals are, is open to discussion. *My* vision is that by providing 
excellent map data, we put everyone in a position to make the map *they* 
would like to have. I know that this is more of a hurdle than "let's 
provide a drop-in replacement for Google Maps tiles", but I believe that 
the end-user stands to benefit from that.

Bye
Frederik

PS: On the subject of Ubuntu. I think they have meanwhile become too 
sure of themselves, and are now trying to make me use a window manager I 
don't want because they assume it's ok for 90% of users and they don't 
have to care about the 10% fossils. I'm pretty sure they have driven me 
away ;)