[OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Future Look

Jeff Meyer jeff at gwhat.org
Tue Jan 8 05:08:08 GMT 2013


Frederik - thanks for the detailed reply. I fear that many of the
observations - as you note - can be arguments to the opposite of those
being made. Also, almost none of the observations are supported by data.
Can you provide any?

I also find that many of the arguments in your mail are contrary to the
Mission Statement of the Foundation (
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement). As you are a member
of the OSMF Board of Directors, this is confusing to me.

Please see other notes below, but I'm not sure they add much to the
comments above.

- Jeff

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:


> All this is not controlled by the OSMF and has largely happened without
> OSMF involvement.


Or in spite of, or because of, a lack of OSMF involvement.

This may have disadvantages - these people don't have to submit to any
> strategic planning by OSMF - but it also has the advantage that OSMF
> doesn't have to deal with fundraising and spending in the million dollar
> range, which would require a well-oiled and mature organisation to do
> properly.


Isn't one of the widest reaching and largest volunteer mapping forces in
the world worthy of a mature and well-oiled organization?


> Such an organisation would have to be built before one were to embark on
> any grand schemes.
>

No time to start like the present.


> The current situation demonstrates that even in the face of a small OSMF,
> the OSM ecosystem does evolve. It may not be steered and centrally planned
> but it isn't static either.
>

The questions are: how well has it evolved? Could it have evolved better?
We don't know. We only know how it has performed in the absence of a
stronger leadership presence and with minimal fundraising. We could
investigate the alternative and see how that goes.


> ... be "there". Before we embark on grand strategic planning, we must be
> able to answer questings like whom we want in the driver's seat at OSMF,
> what our core values are, and such. If you don't know at least roughly what
> you want, strategic planning doesn't help you.


Why not embark on less than grand planning? How about a simple plan? Take a
stab at some core values?


> Thing is, many of us know what they want individually, but we don't have
> good methods of finding the collective will from that.
>

What methods are considered good? Is voting a bad method of divining the
collective will?


> Someone mentioned that it would be great to have paid programmers on hand
> to make improvements to the web site and tools. But again, the question is
> who would task these programmers?



> There are lots of people who want something from OSM - routing on the
> start page, cool offline apps, a nice mapmaking toolkit for everyone to
> use, an different kind of editor, whatever. Bascially, any feature you see
> on any online map anywhere, someone will be there to tell us that OSM needs
> this feature "or else". I've even heard people argue that OSM should buy
> aerial imagery so openstreetmap.org can compete with Google maps.
>

Doesn't everybody want something from OSM? I do. You do. We all do. What's
wrong with that?

Again, why not do surveys or voting? These types of topics would seem to be
great discussions to have prior to SotM, so that we could report out on
progress in decision making.

And, just because people want something doesn't mean they think they'll get
it and that doesn't mean the community shouldn't listen.

Attracting people to openstreetmap.org is good but only if it leads to more
> contribution; getting "market share" is worth nothing if it doesn't also
> improve contribution. Net contribution, I should say, because more
> prominence will also attract more vandals whose work has to be repaired by
> others. So if we attract pepole to osm.org we should try to attract those
> who are likely to contribute. Someone who comes to us because we have the
> prettiest aerial imagery might not be our target group.
>

This is a circular argument.

As one of the OSMF's missions is to "grow the membership," why say, "if" we
attract more people?

For example, what are we doing to (a) attract those who are likely to
contribute, and (b) improve the user experience for those people who are
contributing, and possibly (c) expanding the methods of contribution. And,
how are we tracking our progress?

It seems that figuring out some core values and a plan would help answer
these questions.

Our current model requires that if you want something, you will either have
> to code it yourself or find someone who codes it for you (or pays for it).
> This creates a hurdle which I, personally, find very welcome; it makes sure
> that only those who persist, only those who are willing to spend serious
> effort, only those for whom it really matters, are heard and get their
> ideas implemented, while those who have just seen OSM for the first time
> and sign up to enlighten us with their wisdom and cool ideas, only to go
> away and enlighten someone else next week, are ignored.
>

But it also leaves a huge void in the middle of those two segments of the
community.

And, it is completely contrary to the OSMF Mission to make the OSM project
available to *all*. Apparently, it's available only if you follow some
not-very-well-published participation hurdles.


> If we had a lot of money and paid staff, It is possible that strategic
> thinkers with high-flying plans and buzzword bingo lingo take over the helm
> and have our paid programmers implement whatever fancy strategic plans they
> have, and then issue grand statements about how great we all are. And
> before too long, every December you'll have a large banner on
> openstreetmap.org asking for money (and of that money, 10% goes into
> hardware, 20% into development, and 70% goes to pay the fundraisers and the
> strategic thinkers who develop the next fundraising campaign which will net
> even more). That's my personal horror scenario.


Yep.  That might happen. It might not. What's a personal dream success
scenario?

However, there's no way we'll simply employ someone and tell them "do what
> you think is best for OSM" (not least because it would be much more
> difficult to find funding for such an unspecified endeavour). So we're back
> to the question: What are the important features? Who decides how they
> should be implemented? Can we even agree on something that we all find
> important? Most of you use fluffy words like "moving forward", but what
> does that mean? I have a hunch that many things that someone considers
> "moving forward" would be considered a step back, or at least a step in the
> wrong direction, by others. Who is "we all"?
>

All of these arguments just sound like the lack of an answer means that
inaction is the answer.


> I am disappointed by the fact that so many people react to this difficult
> situation with a knee-jerk call for "leadership" and "vision". We have led
> ourselves pretty well until now and if leadership and vision don't come
> from within then where will we find them? I think just like you need to
> understand the complexity of the code before you can contribute, so you
> require a good understanding of how the project works and why and how
> people are motivated before you can develop a vision.
>

This is a great list of the attributes of our difficult situation, but it
is devoid of potential approaches to addressing them.

How does the OSMF measure the organization's self leadership performance?

I believe calling calls for leadership or plans, "knee jerk," is unfair.
The OSMF's mission states it is here to "support the project and
participate in the OSMF’s democratic process." How is calling what members
are writing, "fluffy words," and calling their actions, "knee jerk,"
supporting the democratic process?

OSM is approaching its 9th birthday. Having some written goals, some
written plans, some monitored performance metrics is not unreasonable.


> A danger I see with many arguments I've read is that they are too much
> "user side". In my eyes, the one thing we absolutely must have is a strong,
> world-wide community of committed individual human beings who contribute to
> OSM regularly and out of their own volition (i.e. because they want, not
> because they're paid for it). If we build a sleek interface for people to
> put their business on the map then that's nice candy but certainly nothing
> that helps us build such a community (because it will simply help us garner
> one edit from each business owner at best, who will log in and enter his
> name and think it's some kind of yellow pages).


Why wouldn't having businesses enter their data help build community? If
that data provided were: (a) ground truth, (b) verifiable, and (c)
increased the numbers of users who were at least aware of OSM and what it
offers, wouldn't that be good & consistent with all of the stated desires?

If people could fix bad routing advice immediately, why wouldn't that
increase contributions?

Also, using the term "candy" to describe information many users of maps
find helpful and interesting is unnecessarily derogatory.


> If we offer a nice map application for mobile devices or a web page where
> you can order prints or a superb routing solution on the web page - are
> these the natural next steps in building a large community of committed
> mappers? If yes, let's do it. If it's just about "market share" - forget it.
>
> For example, assume that Apple were to use OSM data exclusively for a map
> application on the iPhone, but they'd use data that is half a year old and
> update only in half year intervals. That might be a reasonable quality map
> in many areas, and will drive our "market share" through the roof, but
> would anybody bother to log in to OSM to make an edit that he'll only see
> on his iPhone after half a year? This is a fictitious example but it shows
> that market share and editing activity don't necessarily go hand in hand.
> OSM is something other than, say, the Linux kernel - with the Linux kernel,
> the fact that you can download the source and compile your own kernel is a
> distinct theoretical possibility that only the tiniest fraction of Linux
> users will ever make use of; we must not allow ourselves get into this kind
> of thinking where a small group of map maintainers makes the great map for
> millions of people out there.
>
> So the next time you say that something must forward or needs a push or
> must be more usable, if you explain how that feature will help us form a
> stronger community of committed mappers I'll be much more likely to agree
> than if you just say "our map page would be more useful then".
>




>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>
>



-- 
Jeff Meyer
Global World History Atlas
www.gwhat.org
jeff at gwhat.org
206-676-2347
www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20130107/4739b544/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the talk mailing list