These are not the OSMs you are looking for

This piece started as a critique of a piece about troubles in OpenStreetMap, but now I think I mainly agree with the author (Serge Wrloclawski).

  • “When the World Needs a Map, Give them a Database”. This is not true: even the author says OSM does provide a map, but they limit its usage. This makes perfect sense: providing a map can become VERY EXPENSIVE. Why should a not-for-profit entity bear the cost of providing a map for everyone? As the author says, this “free map, limited usage” choice means some users must pay a map provider. Why is this wrong? Why does the author demands a free lunch from a not-for-profit entity? Why does the author not start a freemap.org?
  • “Unclear Usage Policies”. This is not true. As the author says, “5% of free users” means that your usage might randomly exceed the threshold. If you exceed that threshold, you have MANY users. Get the money for the map provider from them.
  • “A Bad Geocoder”. Yes, Nominatim is below average. Pelias is wonderful. Why does the author wastes time complaining instead of just using a good geocoder? Why does the author not start goodfreegeocoder.org?
  • “New mapper problem”. I agree with the author.
  • “Without Moderation, Bots are Hard”. This is not true: just make a bot finding problems and suggesting edits to a human. When the human wants to review a suggested edit, the bot rechecks the same area to make sure the suggested edit still makes sense.
  • “Imports are Difficult”. I agree with the author.
  • “Vandalism is hard to manage”. I agree with the author.
  • “External Tools are Hard”. I agree with the author.
  • “Tools are Harder to Write”. Bad wording, it should have been “Editing is Harder Without Layers”; I agree with the author.
  • “Imports Are Difficult Without Layers”. I’m not sure I understand the point: I suppose it’s the same as “Editing is Harder Without Layers”.
  • “No Support For Observational, or Other Datasets”. This is good: as the author says, the data is already a mess, no need for more chaos. The author can start observationalmap.org.
  • “Lack of Permanent IDs”. This is almost unavoidable: the world is a mess, a map of the world will be more of a mess the more it is close to the world. Maybe this could be improved with layers and strict rules on how to map stuff, but the end result will not be much less messier. And it will be less flexible. And there will still be grey areas.
  • “No Standards in Data Representation”. Same as “Lack of Permanent IDs”.
  • “The APIs are Slow to Evolve”. I don’t know enough to comment on this.
  • “OSM has Hidden Gatekeepers”. This is absolutely standard: auhor just needs to start myopenstreetmap.org. I would gladly help :)
  • “The OpenStreetMap Foundation Culture”. I don’t know anything about this, but I’m afraid this is a real problem and it can’t be fixed.
  • “The World Had Changed”. I mainly agree with the author, more automation is needed, but as I already wrote, the world is still a mess and people will keep having differing opinions. A lot of human intervention will always be needed AND there cannot be a single unique correct map. The map is not the territory.

There is no way with the current OSM culture to add moderation, layers, rules and IDs. The project will stay small and keep on being very useful for many users. There is room in the world, and maybe the need, for a wikipedia-sized, layered, moderated free map, I’d gladly contribute to it, but OSM will not be that map.