I have put together some personal thoughts on OSM’s philosophy, specifically regarding how we approach newcomers and beginners who may be inexperienced or prone to mistakes. I am sharing this translation because I wanted to exchange these ideas with the global community.
I would love to hear your valuable perspectives, whether you disagree with me or have thoughts on how to handle beginners’ errors and what the role of established contributors should be. I also hope this can be an opportunity for all of us to reflect on the core philosophy of OSM.
(Please note that I am not a native English speaker; I used AI translation to help convey the intent and nuance of my writing.)
Technical excellence vs. Human values: Which one truly drives us?
What drives you to contribute to OSM?
Or, what do you hope to find through your contributions?
While everyone has their own story of how they started, one thing is certain: nobody forced us to do this.
This spontaneity is the starting point of OSM and, I believe, the very foundation that defines what kind of community we should be.
As the volume and depth of our contributions grow, we naturally begin to develop our own standards.
We strive for more accurate tags and more precise geometries.
This dedication is undoubtedly the source that has raised the quality of OSM data to where it is today.
However, as our standards rise, we sometimes set them even higher.
Then, when we encounter edits that fall far short of those standards, we might feel disappointment, frustration, or even a flash of anger—thinking, “How could such a mess get into the data we’ve worked so hard to build?”
I fully understand that feeling.
But the moment that emotion turns into action, a problem arises.
No one intentionally sets out to be unkind to or exclude newcomers.
The intention usually starts from a good place—wanting to protect the map.
Yet, the moment we let emotions bleed into our reactions toward sub-par edits, we become unkind to beginners and, as a result, end up excluding them.
At this point, I think we should all take a moment to look back and remember: every single one of us was once a clumsy beginner.
I once described the OSM system as “anarchistic”.
Whether you call it anarchic, “anti-authoritarian”, or “decentralized”, it is a clear fact that no single person in the OSM system is granted absolute power, authority, or rank. (If anyone understands the OSM philosophy differently, please let me know—I would love to look into it deeply.)
There are no editors-in-chief, no judges, and no badges of rank earned through seniority.
The consensus written on the Wiki is simply a collection of past discussions, not a legal code proclaimed by someone special.
Some tags we use today became standard through practice without a formal vote, and some established agreements may now need to change due to new circumstances.
While consensus and tradition must be respected, they are not absolute laws.
Being experienced is a wonderful thing—it means you have great knowledge and skill.
But that doesn’t mean it grants you the right to sit in judgment of other contributors.
Within OSM, such authority belongs to no one. (at least as far as I know! ^^)
If anything, I believe those with more experience and longer tenures should be the most generous, open-minded, and warm-hearted.
The motto of OSM is: “A free map that anyone can participate in making and anyone can use without restrictions”.
It declares that “anyone” can “freely” participate—not just those with high technical skills, those who joined a specific group, or those whose abilities have been “verified”.
It explicitly states that experience and technical prowess do not equate to authority.
This structure can feel strange at times.
There is no hierarchy, no center, and no final decision-maker.
For those from cultural backgrounds where order and hierarchy are seen as natural, this structure might feel unstable.
It’s only natural to ask, “Then who is responsible?”
However, OSM shares responsibility little by little through discussion and consensus across various channels.
There are no exceptions for veterans, experts, or top contributors.
This philosophy has worked for nearly 20 years, despite appearing “unstable” on the surface.
I believe respecting the OSM community means accepting this philosophy, even if it’s hard to grasp at first.
Admittedly, the process of discussing, persuading, and reaching consensus in a wiki system like OSM can seem incredibly arduous.
But if this is the philosophy we’ve agreed upon, we must start by respecting it.
Anyone can edit, anyone can modify someone else’s edit, and eventually, the collective opinions of many people create our direction.
That is the OSM way.
The “Etiquette Guidelines” encourage us to always respect beginners with good faith, even if their contributions are clumsy—as long as it isn’t malicious vandalism.
It advises us to try and understand why someone thinks differently when there is a disagreement.
It is true that explaining, discussing, and reaching consensus every single time seems frustratingly inefficient.
But perhaps what we are building isn’t just a map, but the very process of creating something together.
I hope we can all take a moment to ask ourselves once more: what am I—what are we—contributing to OSM for?
One-line summary: Let’s be kind and welcoming to every newcomer!
emoji as a reaction
