Re: "why the OSM Foundation has a small budget and can't afford to hire more than a cursory staff for the most critical needs"
This conversation was on the Tagging list, but I'm responding here to keep on-topic. It is worth mentioning that the small size of the OSMF organisation and budget is considered a positive choice, rather than a handicap, by many mappers who want OpenStreetMap to stay a volunteer-run, open, independent community. OpenStreetMap runs mostly based on volunteer mapper time, plus some important volunteer time to provide services like functioning data servers, geocoding and routing apps, and renderings. Only a small amount of money is needed to keep everything running, and funding from just a part of the mapper and database user community has been enough for this in the past. In contrast, Wikimedia has a huge budget and a big organisation, but all the control and decision-making is done by a small group. The large expenses require extensive fundraising activities. Some mappers and perhaps some on the current OSMF board would like to see lots more funding to make it possible to do things like have more map styles available, improved editing applications, faster servers, etc. - but more funding means more fundraising and a bigger organisation and so on. Once you start that, it's hard to cut off the funding, so there's a big risk of fundraising suddenly drops off due to a recession or changes in corporate priorities. The current "do-ocracy" has disadvantages too, because it tends to prioritize the interests of people who have the ability to do things on computers: Re: "when you speak of "OSM", you are not speaking to some big corporate entity with a glass lobby, a receptionist, and someone to answer the phone -- you are speaking to a loose tribe of individual volunteers that are collaborating on a free map of the world." And it's that way due to choices that this community has made over time. It could be different, and might change in the future, based on the choices we all make. Personally I see benefits to both models, but the risks are much bigger on one side. -- Joseph Eisenberg On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 2:44 PM Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonew...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Mateusz that the wiki IS the project's standard document for > the meaning of tagging (from the perspective of data consumers) and how to > tag (from the perspective of mappers). Note that both perspectives are > important. But to address the specific point, there is no standard > document for renderer implementers, because there is no such thing as a > standard renderer implementation. A renderer (something that turns data > into a map) is just one of very many ways to use and visualize geospatial > data. > > I know you did not intend to criticize the volunteers that make this > project happen, but consider that when you dismiss the wiki as "no > documentation", it can be interpreted as dismissing the hard work of > countless people that volunteered their time to develop (and translate!) a > large and complex documentation base. Most software developers find > documentation to be a chore and the last thing they deal with. That is why > as someone who has the skills, time, and interest to contribute, I've > expended considerable effort improving the wiki's tagging documentation, > and when I've found gaps or problems, I've worked to draft and advance > proposals to address the deficiencies. I saw a need and began filling it, > and my contributions to that documentation are something I am proud of. > > For a project that provides its only product for free, it should be > obvious why the OSM Foundation has a small budget and can't afford to hire > more than a cursory staff for the most critical needs. Consider changing > your perspective to "what am I able to contribute to make this project > stronger?" rather than "here are the things that are wrong". > > As the author of a product that consumes OSM data, I am grateful to all of > the programmers, mappers, and technologists that have built the various > pieces of this ecosystem without which my product wouldn't exist. It would > be awfully presumptuous of me to complain that this thing provided to me > entirely for free is in some way lacking, and I'm glad I am able to "give > back" in this small way. > > This is just a gentle reminder that when you speak of "OSM", you are not > speaking to some big corporate entity with a glass lobby, a receptionist, > and someone to answer the phone -- you are speaking to a loose tribe of > individual volunteers that are collaborating on a free map of the world. > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 4:15 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagg...@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Dec 14, 2020, 22:03 by and...@torger.se: >> >> Ok, understood. However as far as I know OSM lacks a standard document >> for render implementors to actually know how data should be interpreted. >> >> In part it is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/ in part it is decision of >> authors of map style how they want map data to be intererpreted. >> >> The only reason I get here is when the OSM wiki doesn't have answers >> >> Yes, you are raising some very interesting cases (for example case of >> mountain >> and peaks named separately). >> >> Even here there are various answers and ideas circulating >> >> This is whole point of tagging mailing list for features with no known >> good way of tagging them. (or where it is not documented) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> tagg...@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > tagg...@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
