I think there are some valid points but change is hard and needs a lot more resources than we have available at the moment.
HOT has a validation process but if you look at their projects its rarely used and when it is a new mapper has been permitted to validate. OSM has come as far as it has with a bottom up approach. It's worked fairly well to get us to this point. However it is now apparent that a look at the architecture and funding might be worthwhile. It's noticeable that there are a number of clean up projects at the moment. Place names and telephones in Canada, some work on classification of unpaved highways by Fernando Trebien so some things are happening. Having said that there is a lot of inertia to overcome even if we could decide what would be best. Possibly a technical working group to identify areas that could be improved or even if we were to start over again how would we do it from a technical point of view? Funding would be a different problem. Cheerio John On 17 February 2018 at 06:58, Michał Brzozowski <www.ha...@gmail.com> wrote: > The emacsen's blog post is spot on. I see it as a call for change from a > person who genuinely cares about OSM, not a bitter rant. > > When you say A and the world says B, it maybe well worth considering that > B is the way to go. > > I think many other people share his views, but were afraid to voice it, > just because of being told "that's the way we do things". > > Sure we can't have all of what he outlined, but doing even half of it > would really benefit us. What was sufficient in 2008 may need to be > adjusted in 2018. > > The great challenge is not of technical, but rather political nature. > > I see hope in local communities. They bridged the gap with their tools, > maps and promotion efforts. But this doesn't mean OSMF has to slack off. If > only more of talented and, most importantly, motivated people from local > chapters would want to drive OSMF forward... > > Changing your mission statement is not acknowledging you were wrong. It's > acknowledging the world has changed or maybe has different needs. > > All in all it's not about blaming each other, but working towards our > common goal of mapping the world freely. > > Michało > > 17.02.2018 11:03 AM "Oleksiy Muzalyev" <oleksiy.muzal...@bluewin.ch> > napisał(a): > >> This article is on the front page of the Slashdot today: >> >> Fri 16 February 2018 "Why OpenStreetMap is in Serious Trouble" >> >> https://blog.emacsen.net/blog/2018/02/16/osm-is-in-trouble/ >> >> >> "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" >> >> https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/02/16/2216228/the-future- >> of-free-and-open-source-maps >> >> >> I actually read the article, and though it has got insightful information >> and interesting ideas, I have doubts about some suggestions. >> >> For instance, reviews. I hope it will not come to what there is at some >> commercial maps, when one adds say a building and then has to wait for a >> month that an almighty moderator approves it, so that it appears on the map. >> >> I also skeptical of massive imports from governments' databases. These >> databases were created in the last century, with outdated tools, sometimes >> by disinterested underpaid clerks, probably in a climate of secrecy of that >> era. And such an import may replace the quality data from modern satellite >> imagery, GPS traces, surveys, etc. >> >> Best regards, >> >> O. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
