On 10/28/2014 11:00 AM, Pieren wrote:
Back to the OP, I don't think the OSMF should define "goals" and what the crowd should map first. What makes the success of OSM is not only showing a slippy map or calculating a route from A to B but really its openness. If the foundation defines our "goals", it will fail anyway but could generate some frustration for those who don't care about these goals (e.g addresses). Like the "net neutrality" for ISP's, the foundation should promote "map neutrality" and not some datasets required by specific applications (commercial or not).
Yes. I the foundation's mission statement clearly spells out that it is all about fostering the best possible environment for the map to thrive in the bottom up fashion that made it successful... Not by decreeing goals from the top.
As usual in Openstreetmap's do-ocracy, if you want something hard enough you start doing it and find friends to collaborate with. What you need is not the foundation telling you to do it but the open welcoming soil of the Openstreetmap infrastructure for yours idea to take root.
Addresses are no exception. I would say they are even exceptionally suited to the do-ocratic model because there are rather powerful commercial and governmental interests in them... They are not an orphan project, by far.
So let those who consider addresses a critical piece of the Openstreetmap puzzle add them - the French BANO (Open National Addresses Database) project is reaching critical mass, brilliantly showing that Openstreetmap is lucky to have exceptionally skilled and motivated individuals to lead the way... Ask them if you need inspiration - don't ask the foundation.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
