On Nov 8, 2020, at 7:58 AM, Anders Torger <and...@torger.se> wrote:
I believe the processes available are limited in terms of fixing
structural problems.
You say you have long experience in open projects, that is a fantastic
launchpad from which to join OSM and improve it, even criticize it. I
read that you (here, now) begin to identify what some of these
"structural problems" actually are, but your major criticism seems to
be that "processes available are limited" (I disagree), while my
response has been that I agree with you that improvements in OSM take
a (relatively) long time to fix. Being consensus-based, OSM makes no
apologies that major structural improvements take a (relatively) long
time to fix, but major improvements usually DO take a long time to
fix, regardless of organizational structure. To wit, even if OSM were
run by a single autocratic despot, major structural improvements would
still take a relatively long time to fix. This means "the processes
available" being limited as specious (plausible, but wrong), as there
is vast creativity on tap that OSM applies to solving problems: this
is another example of the power of crowdsourcing being unleashed
performing powerfully. Crowdsourcing doesn't apply simply to a bit of
mapping here, a bit of mapping there adding up (though, that is true),
it also applies to processes, code improvements / bug fixes,
structural betterment, better wiki documentation, better tools and
(over time), the voting in of better qualified board memberships which
contribute sharper and better-applied skills to problems that need
solving and improvements that need doing. Sometimes there is "a step
backward with two steps forward," but that is true in any
organization.
OSM doesn't claim to be perfect, fast or complete. It does get
better, though slowly, that seems to be "baked in" to how OSM works.
It appears this may be too slowly for you, but I submit that this may
not be true, should you apply some shoulder to the effort in
appropriate places (improve the map, improve tools that provide you
with your renderings...) rather than to complain. Especially as I
(and others) might identify your complaints as misunderstandings that
can be solved by working more within the established paradigms of OSM.
However, identifying problems is the first step in solving them, so I
hear you, though mostly what I hear is frustration. If you can
propose better paradigms for OSM, you do have people listening.
(Though, this does not seem the proper venue to do so, we are likely
putting people to sleep here).
It works well to add things into an existing structure (if you're not
in a hurry). A "GOOD idea" is thus one that takes little effort and
has little controversy, like adding a minor new tag preferably one
which really don't need to render on OSM-Carto. If you need to do
something that requires structural change or adjustment it seems
you're in for a rough ride. Sure that's natural of course, but it
becomes a bit like trying to run a multi-national company with no
leadership, just consensus-voting with people "on the floor" inside
their own local bubble (like myself).
Yes. So? Structural change in OSM isn't "a rough ride," it is hard
work and takes time. That's a truth in any organization.
The principle if you see a problem, then you fix it on your own: I
know all about it, I've worked in many open-source projects small and
large and released several on my own, some still in active use 20
years later. However when something gets truly big, total
decentralization can become problematic, and at some point many can't
thrive only on voluntary contributions, some parts need
professionalization and corporate sponsorship etc. Large successful
open-source projects have evolved their organizations to adapt to new
situations.
Propose specific changes, please.
"Fix it on your own" is how imports seems to have been managed. With
varying success. It has worked well in countries were the community is
strong and technically skilled, but in countries with weaker local
community, like Sweden, it hasn't worked. I think the problem is that
as OSM has grown so has the technical expertise required to "fix it on
your own" so the threshold has just become too large for casual
contributors. You basically need to be a professional or have this as
your only big hobby plus have developed engineering skills to be able
to make a good job, and judging from the results exactly zero such
people exists in Sweden. Therefore I think OSM should strive to have a
professionalized import task force where imports are centralized, and
merging with existing data is made by the crowd of casual mappers
according to clear guidelines.
If your community is "less strong," then please strengthen it. That's
why it hasn't worked and it has (a rather obvious) solution, defined
right here. You seem quite technical and quite familiar with open
projects, two excellent skillsets for performing "fix it on your own."
Is the threshold too large for you? If so, you might find / solicit
/ recruit / request resources that are either local or not who CAN do
what is required. There isn't a shortage of these people, we are
simply busy doing other things (not necessarily YOUR things, but
working to make the map better in OUR ways). So, as this is a "free
and open" project, you might get in line once you find these people,
or ask them for some short-and-sweet guidance they might offer to send
you on your merry way to do these things — you are likely up to the
task given how you present yourself. But to throw up your hands and
say "it seems the threshold to fix it on my own has become too large"
has become your mantra instead. Courage, Anders! Please channel your
frustrations into knowledge and practice within OSM that kick-starts
forward momentum on your desires in OSM. It took me years to find my
way (a decade ago), but now I have confidence that I can have positive
effects in this project. You can, too. You don't need to re-invent
the top-level structure to do that — I didn't, I developed my skills
within the paradigm of the project, connected with others who have
similar goals and we work together to do what we wish to see happen.
This is OSM.
Listening to Alan Mustard's talk "Winds of Change in OpenStreetMap"
https://2020.stateofthemap.org/sessions/RRVNAM/ I get some hope though
as it seems like these issues are being taken seriously. If you
haven't listened to that already I recommend it.
I have listened, they are being taken seriously.
Anyway, what is my evidence of all this you ask? We'll let's say I'm
gathering it ;-). The first thing that got me wondering without
knowing much at all about OSM's inner workings is the observations
I've made as a cartography-interested private individual (I'm an
outdoor guy), and as such regularly visiting www.openstreetmap.org to
see if the map had become useful yet.
"Wishing" or "seeing if" doesn't do it. Waiting for "other people" to
complete what you want to see completed will have predictable results.
Roll up your sleeves and implement the improvements you want to see
in the map. Thousands of us (even millions) do this already, there is
little to stop us — as I said, the sky is the limit. I have yet to
crash into realities that prevent me from implementing what I want to
implement in the map (improvements at local, regional and national
levels in a variety of realms like cycling, rail, hiking and landuse).
People have told me "good for you, Steve" and the map has clearly
improved. You can do this, too. I haven't heard you say anything
that actually prevents you from doing so.
Obvious cartographic shortcomings existed 10 years ago, and the same
ones are still present. I thought when the government public data was
released here in Sweden back in 2015 at last that there would be a
boost of the baseline data at least. Nothing happened.
That's because you (and it's true, others) didn't make it happen.
There are no magic wands. "If wishes were horses then beggars would
ride."
And I've read other criticisms of the project, emacsen's blog post is
perhaps the most significant.
At 2014 SOTM-US where I was a speaker, emacsen (in his capacity as DWG
member? I'm still not sure to this day) and another DWG member enjoyed
lunch together with me after my talk. Even after my 29 minute
presentation (obviously in detail) on the topic of establishing a
national bicycle route network in OSM, Serge reflected profound
ignorance of what I / we were doing as I assured him that I was (not
so simply, it turns out) "channeling emerging consensus on national
bicycle routing into accurate data representations in OSM." You'll
notice that his screed you quote was only published after he loudly
quit the project, to use a crude saying in English, "peeing on the
tent from the outside" rather than improving it from within (the
tent). He seemed to indicate his profound frustration — as do you —
with the shortcomings of its ability to improve itself long-term.
That is a sad state of affairs, as nobody likes it when a project
which is vibrant (in one place or realm) frustrates those in what feel
like "deserts" of loneliness of data and poorly developed community.
I can only suggest that you be as much a beacon of light as you can be
by your contributions and outreach. This is called "building
community." You will find it, it is out there, it is likely larger
than you think and as Alan says "it is expansive."
So while I have listened to Alan's talk, (and then Q&A) and while I
have spoken with Serge personally and read his blog post, I can say
that Serge being on the outside complaining and Alan being Chair of
the Board speaks volumes. Criticism has to be constructive to be both
welcome and effective, but first and foremost, it has to be accurate
and widely acknowledged as being true. Serge's take(s) on what is
wrong with OSM show some age, even as many consider it a seminal,
important critical review of OSM's major shortcomings.
If OSM intends to be global, it must be able to adapt to local
conditions which do vary over the globe. Sure you can say that ok, OSM
has a hard time in Sweden and some other minor European countries, but
that's no problem, because it works great in the US! I hope OSM to be
a global project though.
I also hope for OSM to be global. I welcome and deeply encourage vast
geographical participation, from major developed economies with deep
involvement at many levels (individuals, coordinated mapping in
communities / regions, corporations...) to relatively sparsely mapped
less-developed areas (economically and "in the map"). The only way
through, is through, so less-developed areas really have no shortcut
than to develop their communities and mapping. Yes, this is easier
said than done. I don't say this is "no problem," I say this is a
challenge. So, please rise to that challenge, and please bring others
along with you as you do so. Community building can be difficult but
it is absolutely necessary.
Sure one can argue if cartographic generalization actually needs to
work better than it does today. Let's say I'm surprised if it's
generally not considered to be a problem. I know I've read about the
empty rural map problem quite long time ago and more than once, so I'm
not the only person that has seen this. The problem with naming groups
and land areas I actually did not know about until now, simply because
noone has named much at all in nature in Sweden so far. But after I've
mentioned it I see others having the same problem, but as it's often
not critical, especially in dense areas, it's easy to just drop it,
there are often more pressing features to cover.
This seems to be a problem that can be described by both "which came
first, the chicken or the egg?", as well as a phenomenon known as "the
hundredth monkey." In the former, the answer doesn't matter, what
matters is that SOMETHING actually "goes first." In the latter, even
as "99 monkeys" all eat sand on their sweet potatoes, once that 100th
washes hers in the river, all of the others see the wisdom in doing
things a better way, so they all do so, too. OSM has seen similar
"sparks of growth" when a critical mass of community + wisdom (or
simply better practice) takes place. And then, that community (in a
particular realm, solving a particular problem) is off and running.
This really happens.
You may feel you are only the "first monkey" or only the 90th, and
you've still not achieved critical mass. Grow. Keep growing.
Develop your community. Keep chipping away with your efforts, even if
it feels like it is oh-so-slowly. One day, you might be recognized as
a pioneer and you can answer questions on how others can contribute.
This really happens.
But now I get told that getting support for this type of feature is
typically a 4 - 8 year long process. Hmm... it's feels like opening a
graphic design software, and get to know that I can't draw circles for
another 4 - 8 years. Sure I can do all the boxes instead, and put a
point where it should be a circle, and hope someone fix it later.
Maybe I'll do exactly that. But I don't think it should be surprising
that cartography interested casual contributors like myself are struck
with frustration when they see these limitations.
Please. This 16-year-old project is mature enough for you to map.
True, you might need years to develop specific processes that are
specific and local. So does everyone else, by the way, but this
doesn't mean the project is broken. While I'm really doing my best to
listen to your concerns, what I hear instead are your frustrations
that longer-term aspirations on your part take longer terms. No
surprise there. These "limitations" as you describe them seem (to me)
to be either a dearth of data or misunderstandings about the
availability of tagging schemes to map what you wish. So, map. Map
well. Coin tags if you need to. Build community, as it seems you
truly need to do so. Outreach. Move your longer-term goals from the
back burner to the front burner as you see fit and have time to do so.
THAT is what takes years (along with finding others who might share
your similar goals and have the skills and time to help achieve them).
All of this can be done, as it is doable, I have done so. In fact,
with the growth the project has seen in the last several years, the
timeframes seem to be decreasing, as the tools / channels of
communication have diversified and improved, the processes of good
dialog turning into good intentions turning into good mapping have
shortened and become better established as "here's what worked for us,
something similar tuned to your environment can work for you, too."
But I do understand, I come across as "complain complain complain,
disrespect, baseless accusations, bla bla bla, I won't do anything
myself except complaining". And well, I can see that as fair criticism
of my thread :-/. I do feel a bit bad about not having the hours to
back it up "to say I'll fix it myself, I'll start a community in
Sweden, I'll handle those imports, I'll work and make generalization
algorithm (in parallel to Tomas I suppose)". But I just don't have
that capacity, and the alternative would be to just shut up and
continue not knowing what's going on, so I chose to stir in the pot a
little bit. But I'm a nice guy and I don't mean any harm :-). I truly
want OSM to succeed globally *including* Sweden, *and* have great
cartography as we expect here, but I just can't do it on my own.
Please don't "shut up and remain ignorant" as that is giving up. A
moribund community with a death of data can be (it IS, it sounds like
in your case) highly frustrating. The best I might suggest is to take
a long-term approach, "sketch" (as I described, what might be used as
a "skeleton" on which others will build upon in the future) into the
map what you are able to, doing so in bite-sized chunks at a time.
Take a "chip-chip-chip away at it" attitude and give things time to
grow, as this is simply reality. You won't build Rome in a day, but
you can build the bones, while others build the muscles, nerves,
organs, skin and hair. Pretty soon (believe me), it will walk and
talk and be a vibrant, local community with a pretty good, always
improving map, which is never done, but always gets better. This is
OSM. You can do it and I wish you success. We (the larger community)
are here to help you with what we hope is both good advice and
inspiration; good luck.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
