Seeking comment on latest revision of OSMF Strategic Plan

Foundation
21

We did quite a lot of press work when I was on CWG many many years ago, and it worked.

OSM was at a different stage of its development then. Our main aim was to stimulate adoption of the map by data consumers, so we put together switch2osm and did a bunch of activity around that (of course, Google Maps’ hike in API prices helped…).

I don’t think that’s the challenge today. switch2osm did its job. We now have a lot of developer mindshare and a bunch of service companies for people who don’t want to handcraft everything. OSM is already the default data provider for most apps/sites who want some form of custom mapping solution. We don’t need to labour that point any more.

What we do need to do is drive more, and more diverse, contributions. That means making people aware that the map they already use is OpenStreetMap, and that they can edit it.

You can’t do that without attribution. You can drive more conversions if you do media work around that, and you should. The ideal is that you do some brand work to make people vaguely aware of what OSM is, and then next time they see OSM attribution on a map, they know “oh yeah, I read about that, I can make that better!”. And that absolutely relies on attribution - you don’t get the conversion otherwise. No-one is going to know that Facebook’s map is based on OpenStreetMap (so that’s how they improve it) but Google’s map isn’t, unless Facebook’s map has the word “OpenStreetMap” on it.

8 Likes
22

This is however the* example in which it doesn’t really work. Contributors can fix things as long as they like on OSM, outside of road geometry and street names, it is not going to be reflected in Facebooks map, breaking the positive feedback loop that drives contributions.

* in general it wont work for any OSM usage in a similar fashion, and naturally Facebook is not the only one, and it is going to be even more common (at least as long as the OMF hasn’t replaced OSM as their source of road geometries).

2 Likes
23

On 2nd thought(s) there is a goal and corresponding actions that is missing IMHO.

As I pointed out here Google publishes buildings footprints v3 - #7 by SimonPoole one of the endearing aspects of using OSM should be that you only have one set of licence terms that you need to adhere to and a single attribution requirement. It would be even better if there was just one licensor, but that ship sailed a long time ago.

Still it would seem to me that the OSMF should not ignore that it needs to actively work to keep these qualities of the data it distributes alive as far as practical e.g. outlawing CC BY imports is not going to fly, and that the current laisser faire (for example global imports of MS building outlines and other non-sublicensable data) is rapidly creating an untenable situation.

1 Like
24

I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that the Foundation place less importance on attribution. But is moving the needle on Facebook attribution really a blocker for working on increased visibility for the project among potential contributors?

From my perspective, attribution has become a less effective tool for visibility and outreach over the years, but not just due to how the attribution is presented. Sites and applications are already so loaded up with popups and GDPR cookie dialogs and other gizmos that users have become quite adept at dismissing things without reading them. The more you try to get in the user’s way, the more they want you to get out of their way.

To the extent that I’ve seen people discover OSM through attribution lately, they’ve gotten the message that OSM is ubiquitous but have not gotten the message that anyone can contribute. I’d rather the Foundation allocate any spare time to new approaches for cutting through the noise.

This suboptimal feedback loop is also relevant to outdoors applications that overlay their own crowdsourced content. Setting up effective feedback systems is a challenge for everyone, not just third-party providers like us.

2 Likes
25

Hi,

Re: this and subsequent posts about storytelling and OSM.

As a member of the CWG, I can tell you that a) there is a lot of opportunity for getting media coverage for free because the story of OSM is compelling, multifaceted, and positive and b) OSM needs writers to pitch it and write these stories.

Part b takes time. Writing and placing a story cannot be tasked. It takes hours of thought equity, and it only sometimes results in any form of payment.

(and for all of you who are about to type ‘what are ten great stories of OSM into ChatGPT’, just don’t. That’s not the quality of story this project deserves, and it won’t get placement anywhere that matters.)

Writers and storytellers who know how to place stories via social and digital media, pitches, interviews and commentary are rare in OSM. We are working hard to build up the volunteer resources of the CWG, including getting ownership of and making content plans for OSM social media. It’s just like any other discipline. It takes skill and time.

Another CWG member and I were musing yesterday that OSM is a treasure of stories that are rarely told on any of its public communications outlets. Usually it’s the other way around: organizations have to stretch their one or two fairly bland stories for many outlets.

One thing I notice, often, is that the people who are very fluent in the data or the software are too close to the project to see the stories. I also think that the impact of the data on many, many aspects of modern business and technology is not well told. Very broadly speaking, OSM’ers tend to be exact and data-centric, privileging exposition and facts over narrative and metaphorical imagery. It’s hard for people who don’t have GIS or similar backgrounds to understand the project without narrative and imagery.

In the early days of the project there was a strong commitment to evangelizing it to people who didn’t already understand mapmaking. Now, the conversation is almost entirely amongst insiders

I think OSM should have a chief storyteller who is given free reign to narrate the story of project and its people in ways that storytellers knows are effective. The community should fund a stipend for it because such writing takes time and few writers are independently wealthy. The community should protect this person from the everyday criticisms of the forums and lists, as well, so that they can delight and inform and entertain in the ways that storytellers do.

It would pay off in fundraising and visibility that could raise interest for the next generation of contributors. More importantly, it would be a wonderful complement to the enormous good that the OSM project already does for the world.

4 Likes
26

I was on the OSMF Board for a few years. There are very definitely a diversity of views within OSM(F) on how important the OSMF should treat OSM Attribution. Some think it shouldn’t be a focus at all. Some that it’s the most important.

9 Likes
27

I just disagree with the framing earlier in the thread. The OSMF is not the OSM Attribution Foundation. Regardless of the importance or unimportance of encouraging or enforcing attribution, it’s still just one potential tool in the project’s broader goal of encouraging participation and reuse.

1 Like
28

Hey all, great to see all the discussion. I had planned to review strategic plan input today, and create a short list of adjustments to make and then start on edits for Board to work through and approve. Given that there was still a lot of discussion as of yesterday, I’m going to put that out until Monday or so.

1 Like
29

I would either:

  • leave the paragraph as it is
  • delete completely this paragraph as the rewritten version suggests that openstreetmap is somewhat bigotted and interrested in the gender or skin color of its contributors
  • or instead, emphasize that we should strive to be welcoming to all and that particular efforts shoud be directed at reaching inhabitants of the global South as the data benefit from local expertise.
30

Thank you for the feedback,

Your comment highlights that the OSM Strategy needs to be value-neutral and open to all views. This way, local communities can adapt it easily. So, we shouldn’t use words or terms that could be seen as taking sides in any culture. We should avoid bringing in topics or terms from outside cultural debates because this could make people feel unwelcome.
I’ve fully reworked it with this perspective in mind.

2.2. Building an Inclusive and Diverse Community in OSM

OpenStreetMap (OSM) started as a technical project, attracting contributors mainly from specific skill sets and regions. We aim to broaden our reach. OSM should be a worldwide platform, enriched by local insights and diverse perspectives from every corner of the globe.

We acknowledge that multiple factors can limit broader community involvement, such as the need for technical skills, the availability of time, language proficiency, and access to resources. Recognizing that this is not a complete list, we are committed to ongoing efforts to identify and mitigate other potential barriers. As we encourage a more diverse range of community involvement, we are also aware of the complexities this can bring. Our strategy includes ongoing refinements to ensure the community remains constructive and respectful.

Local expertise greatly enhances the value and accuracy of OSM. We are committed to removing obstacles that restrict contributions from any source. The vision for OSM is to be an inviting, accessible, and beneficial community for everyone, continually adapting to the needs and insights of its diverse contributors.

1 Like
31

If I understand correctly, feedback can be given from August 17 for +3 weeks, which means until September 7.

some comments:

For the “2.3. Support community interactions” section:

  • “It therefore encourages and supports local State Of The Map conferences.” I think it could be clarified that not just local but also regional and continental SOTM conferences are supported. If there are regular OSM Continental conferences, it becomes much easier to designate the Global OSM conference as well.
  • “The annual State Of The Map therefore remains a core task of the OSMF” Does this mean that the organizing committee will directly report to the board, reducing its independence?

Ideas:

  • For non-English local OSM conferences - could help with video recording and providing English subtitles. For English-language conferences, subtitles could be provided in 4-5 commonly spoken languages in the Global South.
  • It could be highlighted as a main support principle that future grant applications and supports from OSMF will prioritize multi-continental cooperations. For example, a European OSM community would have an obligation to cooperate with an OSM community in a less economically developed region.
32

If I understand correctly, feedback can be given from August 17 for +3 weeks, which means until September 7.

Totally correct. Sorry I had different timeline in my head, should read what I actually wrote :smiley:

just local but also regional and continental SOTM conferences are supported

Will clarify. Local was meant to encompass these too.

Does this mean that the organizing committee will directly report to the board, reducing its independence?

The OSMF SotM WG organizes SotM in collaboration with the local organizing team. Nothing changes here.

1 Like
33

Hi @mikelmaron,

I would be curious to know what has been approved and what hasn’t,
and which is the last version that the OSMF board will vote on next week.

Or can this only be known after the vote?

34

I typically support initiatives like this @courtiney but with regards to OSM I believe this is a recipe for needless controversy. Whoever is the storyteller, they won’t be able to craft something that pleases everybody. “You’re not emphasizing the contribution of x party sufficiently!” etc.

3 Likes
36

Sorry for the oversight – I’ve been very busy with moving house.

The latest version is at OSMF Strategic Plan Revision 2023v2 - HackMD

Here is the summary of changes implemented from examining feedback here.

  • Simplify “The OpenStreetMap project” to “OpenStreetMap” for a punchier intro.
  • Make sure all subsections have a responsible entity
  • Add points on attribution to section 3.4
  • Incorporate discussion points on 2.2 to speak to diversity with more finesse
  • Mobile has been mentioned several times, highlight in sections 1.6 or 1.7.
  • Incorporate points on communicaton into 3.4
  • 3.1 Mission should be more stable than strategy
  • 4.2: 2023 fundraising campaign should not be mentioned as ongoing.
6 Likes
37

I’m not suggesting to change this at this point in time, but I would note that

“The OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF) is the legal entity that officially owns the assets of the project.”

might be considered slightly misleading, as what the assets are is probably not going to be clear to 3rd parties (actually I’m fairly sure that it isn’t clear to a majority of the community).

Further minor point in this context: either you own something or you don’t, what this probably wants to convey is likely “that holds the assets on behalf of the community” or similar.

2 Likes
38

To that point, it also strongly implies that anything the OSMF doesn’t own, isn’t a part of the project.

1 Like
39

@mikelmaron ,

Thank you for the edits.

I have another comment/question:

What exactly should be understood by this sentence?

“For OSM to accurately describe the world, strive for a contributor base that accurately reflects the population.”

And could it be clarified to avoid misunderstandings?

For me, it is not clear whether it is a problem if German editors are overrepresented relative to the population? see: OSMstats - Statistics of the free wiki world map

And What exactly do we mean by ‘population’?

40

I would definitely not phrase it this way. Though I see potential problem, I am aware of very misguided attempts, in various contexts, at achieving equality/equity/uniformity/lack of differences etc by destroying what worked well. It is much easier to achieve lack of divergences by ruining working stuff and keeping everyone uniformly down.

I would understand this in following way: it would be much better for OSM if it would have as big (proportionally) and dedicated and active and helpful community across world as it has in Germany.

screen01

Though achieving it in say Yemen, China, North Korea, Russia or Burundi has very big challenges that are beyond ability of OSM community or OSMF to overcome.

For example, median income in Burundi (by some statistics the poorest country in the world) IIRC is about 540 euro. Per year. In such case typical person is unlikely to have free time of hobbies like OpenStreetMap.

For Yemen, see Yemeni War - Wikipedia and Yemeni civil war - Wikipedia (note that both are disambiguation pages, listing multiple bloody wars including ongoing Yemeni civil war (2014–present) - Wikipedia )

For China, see Restrictions on geographic data in China - Wikipedia

and so on.

But in many places situation is not as bad, and even in say China/Burundi/Russia some things can be done. For Noth Korea remote mapping is possible and also has some benefits even if typical on the ground survey range from problematic and not advisable to suicidal and terrible idea.

I though about improving this sentences but I had no idea for clear improvements.

4 Likes
41

Exactly, no one is eager to kick people from well-represented backgrounds out of the project or to stop more of them from joining. The goal is to also bring in people from underrepresented backgrounds who share the same enthusiasm and dedication.

6 Likes