“If I didn’t mind Moogle, Macebook, or Mpple controlling my digital world, I wouldn’t bother with OpenStreetMap in the first place.”
This thought has been circling in my head for a while now, and I feel it’s time to speak up, not just to vent, but to invite conversation.
I Noticed Something…
Big Tech companies, yes, those same companies I was trying to escape have found their way into OpenStreetMap.
Macebook (Oeta) hires thousands of paid mappers.
Mpple uses OSM data to enhance its own maps.
Oicrosoft contributes AI-generated data and satellite imagery.
Even Mmazon is in the mix with tools and funding.
I don’t doubt that some of these contributions are technically helpful. But let’s not kid ourselves, these companies are not doing it for the love of open data or the betterment of humanity. They’re doing it because it saves them money, gives them control, and helps their bottom line.
Is OSM Still Ours?
This raises uncomfortable but necessary questions:
Who benefits most from our volunteer contributions?
Are we, the grassroots mappers, indirectly helping the very systems we’re resisting?
What happens when those with power, servers, AI, staff, start shaping OSM’s priorities?
How do we protect the values of community-driven mapping in an open system?
The Openness Dilemma
I get it, OSM is open. Anyone can use it. That’s the point. But openness without ethical safeguards can become a backdoor for exploitation.
My Stand
I still believe in OSM. That’s why I’m still here.
But I want to push this conversation forward. I want more of us to:
Think critically about who uses our data.
Encourage community-first mapping that serves people, not profit.
Over to You
Have you thought about this issue? How do you feel about Big Tech’s involvement in OSM?
Does their contribution help the map or harm the mission?
Let’s talk. I’d love to hear your perspective.
Maybe I am wrong or my thinking is wrong, it will be best to hear from you to change my perspective.
I think there’s a few key assumptions here I may push back on:
“Big Tech” uses our data, and that’s bad. On the contrary, I joined OSM because I wanted these data consumers to have better maps because it impacts my and the people around me life in a positive way. If you told someone pre-computer that anyone can have a choice of accurate maps of the entire world, updated multiple times a minute, they’d think surely it must cost a fortune to use. It’s free, and available on even the most resource constrained computer.
Contributions = control. No doubt large organizations can do a lot of good, and regardless of intent, their contributions enhance the map for all users, from the smallest community projects to the largest corporate systems. But this does not seem to me to give them any more control. The working groups and foundation still are quick to criticize group efforts if something goes wrong and individual contributors are taken into account at the same level as a corporate project lead.
We are all aligned in our values. Im sure some people see contributing to OSM as a “stick-it-to-the-man” or political stance; I do not. I just like to map. Im happy for my edits to help as many people as possible no matter what platform or software is best for them, even if that is from a “Big Tech” platform. I don’t care if my edits are used for profit, Ive made them openly available by contributing, I would care if it was exclusively benefiting one consumer. Thankfully, it is not.
I joined OpenStreetMap because I enjoy contributing to the greater good, and I believe “greater good” includes corporations making money (directly or indirectly) with my contributions.
I also joined because of the community of people working together towards a similar goal. This community includes everyone from the person walking down the street noting opening hours on a piece of paper to add to the map later to a person getting paid by a corporation to update hotels with a new name. Everyone participates in this project in different ways but we end up with a dataset that continues to be useful.
Not sure what is the point of writing this instead of straight “Apple”. It is not some big-tech platform where people need to write “unalived” instead of “died” to avoid a ban.
Open licenses allows this, and it is expected to happen at point when our data is good enough (better than alternatives)
Why it would be bad thing? Contrary to some ideas, someone using some data file does not deprive others of it (see also difference between piracy and stealing). Costs borne by OpenStreetMap Foundation are extremely small, if any, for this to happen. Costs of few or even many downloads of planet file can be rounded to zero.
It results in some people mapping because they want to fix data used by their app/device/etc
You can find far worse users if you want to complain about them, resulting in actual problems and I could find some examples here.
I could also complain at length about data users refusing to provide proper attribution while using our data (one of reasons why I am active for example with openstreetmap/tile-attribution and keep contacting data users violating attribution requirements, sometimes with a success).
Hard for me to say whether Apple applies here - it is listed few times at Lacking proper attribution - OpenStreetMap Wiki but I do not own any of their devices so I cannot easily verify it.
But then problem for me is not “Apple uses OpenStreetMap data” it would be about plagiarizing it due to not providing a clearly visible attribution.
BTW, if someone has Apple device here: can you check whether these issues are still present and write to me? On wiki or via private message on forums. So far I got report about Apple Maps apparently using OSM data in default view, not showing attribution in main view but is clearly visible in map style switcher view. And some users started mapping in OSM thanks to noticing it.
Also, it would not be any less problematic if plagiarism/license breaking is being done by big retail company instead.
Obviously. Google is not hiring people to improve to improve Linux to improve world either*, but to reduce their dependency on Microsoft or to reduce how much people pay for software like operating systems so they can pay more for ads.
Similar reasoning likely applies to many contributions to OpenStreetMap - they would like to depend less on Google Maps and avoid them or their users paying for it so they can rather pay for their services or products.
*“improve world” may apply to some small part but only meager part of overall involvement. There is reason why Google puts more effort into improving software running on $BIGNUM of their servers than on eliminating malaria, and it is not because that first is improving world more.
above does not mean that there are no problems whatsoever with big tech, or there are no bad consequences of various kinds here or that there are no problems
But I reject theory that anything touched by Google/Microsoft/Apple is automatically evil. And that complete avoidance of them is viable.
I am typing this with keyboard made in evil or at least ethically suspect conditions (“made in China”), sitting in a block of flats build as prestige project by occupying regime (Russia-controlled Poland), my ancestors were serfs (not exactly slaves, but differences were debatable), and I am typing this in browser funded primarily by Google on system at least partially made by Google. Similar things go to who made SSD/CPU/RAM and software running within them, only that situation here is even worse.
I guess that demolishing all that is possible strategy, though I would not give much for its success. At that point making device capable of connecting to internet would be a struggle.
I am definitely not a big tech enthusiast, but “there is involvement of big tech here, therefore it is bad and cannot be used” is almost as viable as “there is involvement of murderous regime here, therefore it cannot be used”.
For example Nowa Huta was not torn down after Russians were kicked out, and it would be a poor idea. Being against demolishing all things built during communist regime does not make someone supporter of communist regime, or responsible for evil done in its name. Instead monuments to occupation were torn down. Various name are now appropriate and hilariously passive-aggressive and get my full approval. See OpenStreetMap - more obvious examples include ceremonial naming of central square for Ronald Reagan, naming main roads for Solidarity worker’s union and pope - both significantly contributed to fall of USSR, another road named after general exiled from Russia-controlled Poland after WW II and so on.
Contributions from big tech in OSM may have problems, many problematic in the same way as contributions from small tech, some specific to “big” part in “big tech”. But problems shared with other big contributions.
For example Organised Editing Guidelines - OpenStreetMap Foundation exists for a reason, and I would support more aggressive enforcement of it - though more often problems here are caused by incompetent educational institutions than big tech, at least in my region.
Similar applies to many other problems with big tech contributions, that problems with it are not really big tech specific and the same would apply if it would be done for example by non-profit (also actual non-profit, not only where it is merely some tax avoidance schema)
Are there in fact any big-tech specific issues with contributions? That would not apply to other very large contributions? We had recently catastrophic paid mapping project that was not run by big tech at all but by state and it has not been any less awful due to it. Behold INUN and their 600 blocked accounts that kept damaging OSM to get paid.
The same goes with say employee of big tech company within OpenStreetMap Foundation board. I would have problem with it. But it is not really big-tech specific. I would have problems of nearly the same type with say employee of Indian/Russian/Chinese/etc government.
It would rather applies to challenges like Overture Foundation which hardly can be described as contributing to OpenStreetMap.
(general note: if someone would wrote “there is no problem whatsoever with big tech and their contributions to OSM” I would be also really opposed to such claims)
Oh yay. An AI-generated post complaining about big tech
I joined OSM to make a crowd-sourced map of the world that anyone can use. That means both people we like and people we don’t like get to use it. And, the more people that use it, the more people are motivated to make it better.
I can only shake my head when I read rants about big tech contributing to OSM. Ever planned a trip to a region where basically no western tourist goes to? Many of those places would even miss basic roads without worldwide mapping projects from big tech. OSM data is near perfect where there’s enough “nerds” living or where masses go on holiday but go a bit further…
Actually big-tech themselves came to the conclusion that they neither own nor control OSM at a level that they are comfortable with. That’s why they went off and created the pay-to-play Overture together with the Linux Foundation (and are trying their best to replace OSM where ever possible).
PS: while accumulated over the years there may have been a couple of 1000s of paid mappers, it is hyperbole to imply that there are 1000’s at any one time OSMstats - Statistics of the free wiki world map . Historically FB has paid to talk paid mapping contributions up, that should tell you something.
So default one is using OSM data, but to see attribution you need to go to layer switcher.
On the other hand attribution is clearly visible there and many users will use the switcher.
I guess that is not ideal and can be argued to not fulfill ODBL requirements but is a fairly good attribution. Especially compared to what many others are trying to pass as acceptable. So overall I am tempted to praise* them, but not give as an example to follow.
Edited that sentence again.
disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
*bar is quite low in this area, sadly. I seen far worse from others, mostly middle-tech like mapy.com mobile apps (yes, I tried contacting them)
As already pointed out, attribution is in the layer switcher. But I don’t know how often they update, because a road in the nearby area that is removed 4 months ago (on OSM), is still present on Apple maps.
Not much to add to your message, it’s written very good. Before I started mapping in OSM, I also did a lot of mapping in Google/Apple maps by reporting problems. However, the time this took before they approved some added cycle lanes, made me come to OSM.
I’m ok with big tech using our data. I see dangers in
mappers only joining OSM so that their edits are displayed on big tech platforms (meaning these mappers will leave if some guy at Apple etc. decides to stop using OSM)
mappers only joining OSM to bolster their resume to then be hired by big tech (meaning they are not mainly in the game to improve OSM but to do whatever they believe big tech likes to see)
big tech giving increasing amounts of money to the OSMF who then hires ever greater numbers of people and becomes dependent on that money (meaning big tech can wield more influence in OSMF)
But currently none of these dangers have me super worried. I believe that there’s a bubble of “big tech fanboys” (or fangirls) in academia and the media who like to talk up big tech involvement in OSM because it makes for interesting papers and articles but on the whole I think that paid mapping is irrelevant for OSM.
I think you need to point out that this is only hypothetical.
IRL there is no increase in the funding from big tech to the OSMF at least as far as can be determined from OSMF announcements and budgets. What is correct is that more events by local chapters and similar are being sponsored, but that doesn’t lead to increased spending by the OSMF (that naturally is not entirely unproblematic but then event sponsorship is one of those things which tend to be just about the money).
Is it really a danger? Even if it would mean that they are expected to overall contribute less, then it is still more than zero.
If anything I would worry about badly made editors/programs (INUN for non-tech example, Maps.me to a lesser degree) and mistagging for renderer being more prevalent. But it would be quite extreme to be a danger. Maybe some major social media company releasing bungled INUN-level editor and pushing it to large audience?
But mappers likely going away once data consumer switches seems to not raise to level of a danger.
well, there is danger of big tech giving increasing amounts of money to OpenStreetMap competition and OSMF being utterly outmaneuvered due to lack of capacity, which would be worse in my opinion (and seems more likely)
(disclaimer: it is possible/likely for me to profit from OSMF being more wealthy and being able to fund more things)
My only concern was the Overture move: trying to enlist the OSM community to maintain their database. I think it hasn’t worked out, but maybe it’s too soon to tell.
I found this statement interesting and took a look at my historical OSMstats database. The highest value I could find was for 2020-04-10: on that day, apparently at least around 1800 organized paid mappers were active. Unfortunately, the data for that specific date is not available in OSMstats. So I looked for the most recent date with more than 1000 organized paid mappers. That would/should be 2022-03-16. The data for this date is still visible here: OSMstats - Statistics of the free wiki world map
Some background on the data: the number is cumulative. This means there were about 5500 unique active mappers on that day. However, these mappers may have been active in more than one country. For the 260 countries listed in OSMstats, there were about 6600 total mapper activities recorded, of which roughly 1100 were marked as organized paid (based on information in the users’ OSM profiles).
Please note: the numbers I’m sharing here are not exact, because a) my database does not include a complete list of organized paid mappers, and b) I only have the country-level numbers, which, as explained above, can contain an uncertainty of around 10% to 20%. Still, I decided to share this here as it might be of interest to others.
Best regards,
Pascal
Edit: Replaced “organized” with “paid” because my database only includes paid accounts.
Thank you for the hint. I’ve corrected my post. However, the inaccuracy of my numbers still remains. As a complement to yours: perhaps my figures represent the lower bound?
Asking this question is taking the volunteer spirit away by implying that someone is “stealing” your work. Its not the case. And i think that goes into the completely wrong direction - killing our spirit.
The Mindset of Open Source/Free Software or liberal licenses was about freeing the world from restrictions. And by restrictions i do not talk about economical ones, but usage, maintainance etc. Its a state of mind. Freedom.
And i would like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Here etc use OpenStreetmap everywhere.
The point is: We have lived with bad/broken/outdated Map data for too long. And we dont have control what data is used where. So with Openstreetmap we make an offering with no strings attached (For me ODbL attaches to many strings - but YMMV). A maintained map - mostly by volunteers today, maybe paid tomorrow. And now you have the choice. Pay for commercial data, or use OSM. But you have a choice. FreeBSD, Linux, Open Source as a system was about offering you a choice. Take it or leave it.
And with all the big players stepping in we are still upholding our goal. Offering a choice. OSM is the biggest collaboration hub for map data. And i find it fascinating to see TomTom, Microsoft, Apple fixing up Map Data in colaboration where before everyone had to fix their own problems. They are working on the very same map data - together.
Going back into Linuxes history you’ll see that back in 1994 (When i started with linux) everything was volunteerly driven. When you look into commit statistics for the kernel releases today the vast majority of contributions are coming from commercial players. Has it killed Linux? No it hasnt. Linux is the largest colaboration hub for an Operating System.
