[OSM-talk] Things People Say

[Richard Weait]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Thomas Davie <tom.davie at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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;
>
> Perhaps because that's the original, and stated purpose of the project – to make open maps.
>
> As I've said many times – a database of map data is a *really* useful thing, it's probably the single most important contribution OSM can make, but ultimately, the *point* of the project is to make maps.
>
> Pretty much everything you say is based on the premise that the point of the project is to make an enormous collection of map data, and damn actually being able to use it.  This premise is false.

The point of a project to create a really good text editor is to
provide a tool for editing text.  Nobody expects vim or emacs to
provide you with the finished document when you download vim or emacs.
 Our situation in OSM is not exactly the same as a text editor.  The
OSM data base is a great resource.  The software stack we use is a
collection of great tools.  We, as a community, have assembled reams
of documentation and examples.  And we count among our project dozens
of people ready and able to answer questions for motivated newcomers,
via help.osm.org, irc and other channels.

"Damn being able to actually use it" rings a bit hollow.

The key to OSMs success is to continually improve the data.  That
needs people who edit (and people who write code for editors, maintain
and improve servers, document and test code, etc.)

Attracting more users is nice, but much less important than attracting
more editors.  Here's why: as we attract more editors and the data
continues to improve, we won't be able to keep users away.  We already
see that with tile scrapers.  We can't handle the load so we have to
block them.  Instead we have to (really, we HAVE TO) point them
towards the methods of consuming OSM resources responsibly.