On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote: > > > Am 10.08.2018 um 22:14 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM: >> ... >> Our community should have a say in what wins, we can try them both, >> but here is a local group asking us to try plus codes and there is a >> lot of momentum behind it. > In the case of w3w one can actually make a technical case for including > them in OSM, in the case of plus codes, as has been pointed out. that is > absurd. If a community wants to try out one or the other, more power to > them, I just fail to see what that has to do with OSM. > > Simon > > PS: naturally the momentum has a lot to do with very very very deep pockets >
Oh absolutely. Vendors supporting OSMF is critical. If a donor wants to sponsor particular improvements, I 100% support that if the community generally supports the improvements. I think we are all agreeing it has really good, lightweight, dynamic implementation characteristics. That is a great technical criteria. I do not support w3w (full disclosure founder of w3w has been a supporter of HOT, an organization I work for, these are my opinions only). It is a fun idea, but I think it does not work for a number of reasons. But super cool idea. But while I do not like the w3w solution, if they wanted to support OSMF to improve w3w support in osm core and the ecosystem of tools I would be all for giving it the exact same trial if the community agreed. But generally, I think plus codes are coming out looking quite good from a technical perspective, both dynamically generated and static uses like address signs and printed maps. Cheers, blake -- ---------------------------------------------------- Blake Girardot OSM Wiki - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Bgirardot HOTOSM Member - https://hotosm.org/users/blake_girardot skype: jblakegirardot _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
