I’ve been around on and off since 2009. Obviously I cannot speak for Overture, just share my thoughts.
-
Customer orientation
OSMs stance has largely been “we collect the data, let the data consumers sort it out”. As a consequence, OSM doesn’t have customers, just people using our data. No brand recognition or loyalty either.Critically, the emphasis has shifted - from building the map to maintaining and providing it.
We could look into a) what data our users actually value and need more of / better quality, and b) offer a (paid?) option where data excerpts with defined meaning and structure are provided and maintained with the junk weeded out. Oh, wait…
-
Innovation
Essentially, we are still in 2009-2015. But those goals have been (over)achieved, and the world has moved on. Remote sensing, satellite navigation, OGD, live data feeds and AI are commonplace. I don’t see any of this reflected in OSM. Advances are happening with tags, tools and applications, but not at the core.Nowadays, OSMs sheer size and complexity make any substantial change a huge undertaking beyond the capabilities and funds of any of the participants (not to mention the decade of debate that would ensue).
-
Reliability
As it stands, OSM is a bunch of volunteers who could turn to mapping Mars if the opportunity arose. The community is still struggling with an image of amateurs and socially challenged nerds. That’s not the kind of partner a professional data consumer would want. -
Unresolved internal conflicts and contradictions
Going way back to the not to be questioned ideals of the founding fathers (were there any mothers?), just to name a few:- Collect data vs provide something useful
- Community orientation vs product orientation
- Free data, but with a not-so-free license
- Monetization, but only for some
- A steering body where nobody should have a decisive influence
- Brand recognition, but only through intermediaries
- No rules, unless the Wiki (subject to change without notice), the Community (the handful of guys who happen to be online), the DWG or your favourite deity say otherwise
- Then again, its a do-ocracy, make your own rules
- Then again, none of the above may be applicable
- No mass edits or imports, except manually, or under the radar, or if nobody notices or cares, or if you ask nicely
- Use QA tools, but don’t rely on them; after all, there are no rules and everything is subject to debate
- Play in major league, but depend on donations, but not in a way that someone might want to influence us for their own benefit
-
Efficiency
Human mapping on the ground has its advantages (apart from being fun). That said, there simply aren’t enough experienced mappers around to even maintain the ever-growing amount of data, let alone extend it. It’s a battle we can’t win. The structures and tools for data management simply aren’t there.Our strength used to be in numbers, but how long that will hold is anybody’s guess.
Overtures alpha release may be junk, but with their infrastructure and reliability percentage they have the means in place for continuous, manual and automated refinement. Just a matter of time, money and patience. The big question ist, how much will it take to catch up with millions of unpaid mapping hours world-wide? (nothing, if they can re-publish our data)
-
Leadership
OSM of 2009 is over in most respects. What’s needed is a new vision from now onwards. Who will participate and why? What will they strive for, and for whom? Which rules and tools will they need? How will they be motivated? Where will they get resources? What makes OSM different and better? How will it be recognized (Intel Inside®, anyone?) And what’s the policy with respect to other players - compete, co-exist or cooperate?The OSMF is doing what it can, but it is no match for professional, commercial, focused leadership - unless Overture trips over its own feet, or runs out of steam.