Why does OSMF Budget €25,000 on Amazon

Sorry, I misunderstood that! Thank you for correcting me. I updated the post.

1 Like

No, letting this to happen is bad and is not a good sign in general. I work with very limited information, since most of the S3 details are kept private for some reason.

General note: I would not start from assuming some drastic incompetence even if some things appear to be confusing/weird/unwelcome.

Both in cases where what happened makes sense and in cases where some serious mistakes happened it is more helpful to be a bit less emotional.


As I see it from the information available publicly, it’s a mess.

The operations group don’t seem to reveal exact costs or usage which makes it so much harder to analyze. They also say that it’s actually 0€ which makes me much more confused. Where does this 25k€ actually go to?

Sorry for my lack of respect, but I am really frustrated as to what I learnt today.

There is still “25% of my donation money went straight to Amazon” which is definitely mistaken


A budget is different than an income and expenses statement or balance sheet. In a budget you allow for contingencies, while in an income and expenses statement you’re reporting actual costs and deprecation. Given how you’re engaging on this and attacking the volunteers, I find it difficult to respond to this.


Which part has offended you? That’s not my intention. Your argument is quite peculiar, and you haven’t provided any valuable context that would help in resolving this matter. Why are OWG operations kept secret? Is me figuring out an issue with that, attacking you?

Er, what? Please leave us (the Data Working Group) out of whatever point it is you are trying to make :slight_smile:

More seriously, I don’t think that it’s fair to describe anything that you need to “better understand” as “insane”. It’s certainly judgemental to include stuff like the “Literally OSM in 2022, 2023” picture when you have yourself said you don’t know the whole story.

I suggest that you revisit your posts here, ask yourself which things you’ve said you’re sure about because you definitely have the full story about and which you’re not, and reword accordingly.


That’s the point, what’s exactly being stored on those S3, that we need 25,000€ of them per year. I was not able to find enough public information which made me very concerned. That’s a quarter of the OWG budget and it’s completely private.


Are you really, really sure about DWG (Data Working Group) being involved at all?

Note that your understanding of situation may have other similar gaps.


Fixed, typo, I meant OWG and seeing the @SomeoneElse made me type “D” instead :stuck_out_tongue:

From 3 months ago, Operations/Minutes/2023-05-04 - OpenStreetMap Foundation, OWG talks about the AWS cost for GPX traces and user images being 400-500 USD. Why not zero? 3 months ago is surely is within the last 6 months range.

Key word “expected”, I am asking about today, actual, current cost. As seen above, I found conflicting information to your statement. I found a talk about potential AWS sponsorship but I couldn’t find any information about it being actually realized.

  • A big part of the costs for the general account is the logging for the CDN and the planet backups.

Right now I understand that we pay €25000 yearly on storing primarily CDN logs and backups? Is that correct? This can’t be right.

Right now I understand that we pay €25000 yearly on storing primarily CDN logs and backups? Is that correct? This can’t be right.

From everything I’ve read in this threat so far you’re wrong. Can you step back, collect your thoughts and make a new post with your finding and/or questions in a couple of days? On github you edited one comment 8 times, it’s hard to follow. And as another user already wrote it reads like you’re in attack mode (knowingly or not), every other sentence reads like another assusation that other people hide something.


@NorthCrab Please let Firefishy get back from holiday and give you a full answer rather than keeping posting here about some links you might have found on the OSMF wiki.

For some more context, I edited this github comment (edits are publicly accessible) because I initially couldn’t find more information about the bi-weekly OWG meetings. After discovering this page: All pages with prefix - OpenStreetMap Foundation, I decided to retract my statement. This page is quite hidden on the OWG website: https://operations.osmfoundation.org.

We don’t yet use AWS for serving planet data, the ticket is still open for a reason :wink: And when we do it will be $0/month due to AWS sponsoring the cost under the AWS public data program. We have a dedicated AWS account setup with delegated billing to AWS already setup.

Maybe you are right, but it’s hard to remain calm when you find such conflicting statements.

  1. AWS has been free for 6 months now: Why does OSMF spend €25,000 on Amazon - #4 by Firefishy
  2. Wait, actually it WILL be free: Operations/Minutes/2023-01-12 - OpenStreetMap Foundation, when we finish Move planet hosting to S3 · Issue #678 · openstreetmap/operations · GitHub first (quote: “Get planet tasks done and then ask for AWS sponsorship”)

Funny thing, I never asked whether it’s free or not. I accessed public information and found multiple concners with it, which I decided to bring up. I don’t know what the argument “hey buy it’s free now” really does here. It doesn’t answer anything.

Here is a screenshot from the AWS which actually shows 25,000€ spending estimate for 2023. The core issue I have, is why? Why so much? What do we store there? So far I only got this:

  • Primarily CDN logs
  • Primarily backups
  • Secondary GPX traces
  • Secondary profile pictures

Those should not be a 25,000€ yearly spending. That’s what I am most concerned about. This is not right. That’s what I want to bring attention to.

Please don’t change my wording. I said:

It’s quite obvious that I don’t have access to private information of others.