[OSM-talk] You are still free to continue to use or interpret this tag as you see fit since OpenStreetMap does not have “banned features”

Tue Mar 16 23:10:11 UTC 2021

Lots of good ideas and conservatism, all for good reasons in this thread.

Sören has identified some points, in his own young rebel-ish style, 
which concerns many, especially the data consumers and the renderers. 
And I like his ideas, young and new visions is what drives innovation, 
brings creativeness and progress. Some more traditional, conservative or 
non-database specialist mappers opinions. I also like many of those 
ideas, free as literally free, any mapper can do whatever he wants, 
which creates for some chaos, but also has driven OSM for what it is 
today. And although I am an ambassador for everything free and open 
source, it would be not a good tactic to continue a campaign against 
everything the big companies are doing. In the contrary, they have 
proven that there commercial inspired "closed source" tactics, have 
worked, reached masses. In the recent years what we generally see is 
that they also embraced a concept of more open source politics. I think 
we should embrace this, use their approaches, embrace them and learn 
lessons from their successes and failures. It will be very hard, very 
likely impossible, to find a consensus between both visions. My advise 
would be to look at a solution, incorporating technology that is already 
gaining world wide support and applications. Incorporate them in an OSM 
2.0, with full compatibility to OSM 1.0, the current philosophy. Let it 
be clear, I am not a database specialist, I do have yearlong IT related 
professional experience, but I don't call myself an IT expert. I am a 
mapper, an OSM contributor and try to be an ambassador for it. SO in the 
following more technical context I might use some less accurate 
statements, feel free to shoot at them or correct me. The technology I 
am talking about is RDF. The graph database model, based on ontology and 
data triples. The OSM database backend is a Conventional SQL data store, 
PostgreSQL. But we can store triples in a relational database, the 
technology, with translators, schema etc... is already there, developed 
and used. Even more, RDF is (or is becoming) a W3C standard. The base 
for the new semantic web, isn't OSM the semantic web for the mapping 
world of applications ? OSM 2.0 could just be a parallel triples store 
in our database. Established tagging (thru the guidleines) will have 
their equivalent in the triples store. Even competing schemes can have 
their place their, like landcover/landuse versus natural/landuse. But it 
can exist next to the completely open and free model we have at this 
time, with all it's non-structured quirks, abandoned, freely invented or 
consensus tagging. Database consumers or renderers have the free choice, 
use OSM 1.0 or OSM 2.0, where 2.0 comes at a much lower cost. Supported 
triples are defined in a flexible but clearly defined ontology/schema. 
Every consensus tag has it's RDF reference and integration described in 
it's corresponding wiki page. Mappers who want their tag to be 
integrated in the RDF model, used by database consumers or renders, will 
be "forced" to comply with the schema. I believe this could be the 
future, not only to sustain our initial freedoms, but also as the future 
for a more usable OSM, a tool also to better structure our data for 
documentation, and resolve issues in competing applications and schemes 
which hinders us from progressing. I am very keen to know your opinions 
on this, especially from Sören. Greetings, Bert Araali

On 17/03/2021 00:41, Jannis Achstetter wrote:
> I tend to agree with what Roland Olbricht wrote.
>
> However, I would like to answer to the "roadmap" below. Yes, the
> majority of people don't care what Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Google, bla,
> bla are doing. I do care. I don't use Facebook and WhatsApp, I don't
> have any closed-source Google-Apps on my Smartphone and it's my choice
> not to use Apple's products.
>
> It's not always true that a minority cannot change anything. As you
> said, OSM "creators" / "contributors" might not be too many people. But
> think about how the world of open map data would look like if OSM had
> not been started in the first place.
>
> And this is why I want OSM to be as open as possible. I do want to be
> able to invent tags that no one yet uses. This is how OSM started: There
> were no rules on which tags exist. People started inventing them
> whenever they thought it makes sense to have this information in OSM.
> And slowly, schemes and "most commonly used tags" were worked out. If
> someone wants to tag feature XYZ in the future, let them :) Even if this
> information is not used at the moment, we might be happy to have it at
> some point of time.
>
> 	Jannis
>
>
> Am 16.03.21 um 16:41 schrieb Sören Reinecke via talk:
>>> then they are in breach of our license, because everybody interacting
>> with a work based on OpenStreetMap data must be made aware that the data
>> is from openstreetmap and available under the odbl.
>>
>> It is not about proper attribution, it is the fact that most people
>> (Mainstream) do not care. But that is getting off topic.
>>
>> _Let me give you a roadmap:_
>>
>> Facebook brought WhatsApp and will now combine WhatsApp user data with
>> Facebook user data. Reaction from Mainstream: I don't care, not even
>> about my own property.
>>
>> Google & other Smartphone OS vendors disallow the removal of so-called
>> "system apps". Reaction from Mainstream: I don't care because I like
>> dictatorship
>> And since my E-Mail app is a system app and gets no updates anymore
>> (modern e-mail providers begin to change their login systems), I have
>> just another unusable app on my phone costing me space.
>>
>> Apple traps you in there ******** universe of no standardization and bad
>> practice. Reaction from Mainstream: I don't care, please let me be hostage.
>>
>> Amazon does not pay taxes. Reaction from Mainstream: I don't care, I
>> will support them anyway no matter what they do.
>>
>> Lieferando runs shadow websites. That's literally speaking faking real
>> existing websites. That's legal and also supported by issuers of SSL
>> certificates. Reaction from Mainstream: I don't care, I let them trick me.
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
>>
>>
>> So why should the Mainstream be interested in the source of the data
>> they use. Most don't even care about their own data :(
>> Only a small portion of open-minded people mainly organized in
>> Communities will care and notice the great work we have done. Most
>> people will "just don't care" and raising awareness won't get the
>> desired effect (yet).
>>
>> That is sad but the Mainstream is like that. Humanity is weak
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16.03.21 14:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> then they are in breach of our license, because everybody interacting with a work based on OpenStreetMap data must be made aware that the data is from openstreetmap and available under the odbl.
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20210317/54da7df7/attachment-0001.htm>