[OSM-talk] Things People Say

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> 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.

They're not orthogonal. The core question is "What is the project's
goals?" and based on what you've said in the past, you want a small
project generally. Small number of editors, small OSMF, etc.

I want lots of editors, and I want OpenStreetMap to be about maps, ie
people go to OSM for their catrographic needs.

> I cannot see why you would bring it up here,
> other than try to discredit my position?

it represents your view on the project as a whole. I have deep respect
for you, we just disagree on some issues.

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

True. I've been negligent in my efforts to do this. I should work on
editing more. I'm on vacation at the moment but when I get home, I
promise to have something, *something* to show for my efforts before
Valentine's Day. If not, I will work out some suitable amends.


>
>
>> 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.

Let me clarify a bit that these aren't bad people saying stuff like "I
like compiling my own kernel". I have a friend whose the maintainer of
some core packages (coreutils and gnu utils), and these are the kinds
of things he said.

Good people who do good things, good friends who I drink with, but we
disagree on some things.

> 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.

That's true, but I think the Wikipedia analogy is also darn good. OSM
should be the Wikipedia of maps. That's my view.

> 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?

Excellent question! The reason I think OSM should be providing the
maps is that OSM is the one making them. It's about the full circle of
display and creation. It's also about community. OSM is not about some
random collection of facts, but about the work of thousands. I think
it's "cool" that other project use OSM data, but I like the idea that
we stay a cohesive community, able to work out issues as a group.

> 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?

I think a stronger OSMF, that actively fund raised to the right
parties, would reduce these resource concerns.

I know the current model, though, and I think it's sub-optimal.

> 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 don't think that's a terrible thing. If the *only* differentiator
was that we're Free and they're not- that would be enough for me.

>> 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."

I'm sad you feel that way, but it's not what I said. You're a well
respected member of the community whose done more for OSM than I can
ever hope to do. Your efforts are amazing, and you're a really nice
guy.

I feel the same way about Andy Allen. I also disagree with him on this point.

- Serge