Yes, i think you highlight an important point - that is diversity in tools. Nominatim as you said has no real alternatives or in other words: it has more or less a monopoly. Map styles and map rendering toolchains seemingly are available in large numbers and different varieties but if you really get down to specifics (community maintained map styles suitable for broad mapper feedback, tools not under precarious control of corporations - see mapnik, carto or here) things look much more bleak. And editors see a massive market concentration towards iD and derivatives. The OSMF plans should also be seen in light of this - specifically we probably have a case of the Matthew effect.

I was actually on the brink of leaving all tile server/map related stuff away as, it is overall unclear how “core” they are.

Sure - but why include Nominatim and osm2pgsql then? If you want to define core infrastructure narrowly you should only keep what is required for the API and for generating and distributing planet files and diffs. If you adopt a wider definition including geocoding but not including map rendering is kind of a weird choice.

I am not sure how you define core infrastructure software. You include iD, osm2pgsql, Nominatim, rails-port, mod-tile/renderd and possibly osmium. But if you include mod-tile/renderd why do you not include mapnik and carto (which both have been in a precarious situation for years since mapbox has lost any interest in them)?

By the way there has been work on providing better feedback on coastline placement in OSM-Carto but it is stuck due to the lack of consensus among the maintainers:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3895

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3930

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4128

Since this might be looked at by a wider audience now - useful further information can be found on:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-January/thread.html#50252

See in particular my comments here:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-January/050259.html

Other useful links:

osm.wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement osm.org/changeset/88211516

To actually achieve consensus here someone (that is someone speaking Spanish sufficiently well and being familiar with the subject - i.e. not me) has to break through the layer of political beliefs shaping the local tagging and have a discussion based on reason about the exact nature of the local physical geography and develop a tagging consensus based on that (which would probably be neither of the two versions proposed so far)

Since there are a few comments indicating displeasure with jotos hard stance on the matter - please remember that he does the work on maintaining a coastline extract free of larger errors. Everyone is free to take the code and create and make available their own extract - without or with different error checks. If such extracts would work well OSMF operations would probably gladly use them and joto would be happy to have less work.

What is being attempted now:

osm.org/way/194704675

is a questionable approach. The OSM coastline is meanwhile universally accurate enough that normal edits will not trigger the sanity check - with the exception of large iceberg calvings in the Antarctic that occur every few years. That means every edit triggering the sanity check when applied without piecemeal application trickery will be (or has been) one where someone is either scratching a personal or collective political itch or an actual mapping error. Avoiding the need for consensus building and defending your view of what the verifiable local geography is against broader scrutiny using such tricks is therefore problematic.

Last year update is on

osm.org/user/imagico/diary/391322

No newer data is publicly available so far (not even overall numbers - see: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Membership/Statistics)

I had been bugging the MWG several times to set up regular automatic publication of statistics and also offered to help but nothing came out of this so far. If you ask for current data you will probably get it though.

Like so many others who compare OSM to their favorite garden variety tech project you seem to not consider that those are all highly culturally non-diverse projects. What OSM tries to do is something very different. Running OSM like a garden variety tech project would be comparatively easy and this would avoid the need to deal with a lot of problems OSM is struggling with. But it would also mean giving up on the core of what OSM tries to achieve - creating a map of the world by the people for the people based on these people sharing their local knowledge in egalitarian, self determined cooperation.

Ok, i will try to explain the naming problem in more detail.

Most - if not all - of the features of the OSM website have descriptive names that are translatable (and are practically translated) into other languages. Think of things like the user diaries (Benutzer-Blogs in German) or changeset discussions (Änderungssatz-Diskussion in German) are named in each language in a purely descriptive fashion. Although these features might have first been named in English there names in different languages are on equal level descriptions of these features in these languages.

The name ‘microcosms’ for your feature OTOH is an English language metaphor and wordplay with the abbreviation OSM that is derived from the philosophical concept of macrocosm and microcosm which originates from ancient Greece. This metaphorical use is non-descriptive. Translating the philosophial concept of macrocosm and microcosm into a different language (which at least in many European languages ins not a translation but a transliteration of the Greek name) does not result in a descriptive name for the feature in general. This is further aggravated by the use of the plural of the word which in its original meaning is not typically used in the plural form. So someone tasked with labeling the feature in a different language is confronted with the non-satisfying choice of either

• translating the name without the word play and without consideration of its metaphorical use - which is not very intuitive and likely often misleading, especially in languages from cultural context very different from the European one.
• inventing a different, non-metaphorical and purely descriptive name or
• using the original non-translated name as a foreign language artefact.

Any of these choices make the non-English versions of the website fundamentally different to the English language. This would be a novelty on the website and as such a political statement.

Not to mention that the use of such a wordplay metaphor based on a philosophical concept that is a fairly poor metaphor for the feature in question is not likely to be very intuitive to English language users either.

I have not looked at the actual functionality of the feature yet but none the less two general comments:

• i would strongly suggest reconsidering the naming - see also this comment. This would be the first feature on the OSM website that has a non-descriptive, non-translatable name which would have massive practical and political implications. I can explain this in more detail in case it is not clear.
• if integrated into the OSM website it seems this would be by far the most complex feature and as such would for many not be usable without comprehensive user oriented documentation. Some serious thought should IMO therefore go into how to produce and maintain such documentation in the languages the OSM website is generally available in.

For better understanding of the goals here - do you develop this on your personal time or does this get financed by anyone else?

For clarification - i was talking about OSM verifiability. As you demonstrated in your analysis you can surely talk in a scientific way about the naming of features and the history of it. If the results of such analysis can be documented in OSM is a different question. That depends on if that information can be independently verified locally without depending on secondary sources. If we as Europeans map remotely in an area outside Europe where we might not even be familiar with the local language that is usually hard to find out w.r.t. names. What Foucauld found out about local names a hundred years ago might have accurately described local knowledge back then and might form a significant component of our remote European understanding of the names in the area today. It however most likely is not telling much about currant name use in the area by locals.

Regarding your image - that looks fine - it is the larger area Bing screenshots that bothered me.

I think this is a great example for showing the problems of trying to document non-verifiable information in OSM - as well as how the lack of verifiability often manifests. It also shows well how projects to document a naming practice - like historically Foucauld or today Wikipedia - are not neutral observers documenting the cultural practice but become part of and influence the naming culture themselves - whether they want to or not.

One other thing - the false color images you show to illustrate the location you are writing about gives a bit of a wrong impression of the appearance of the region - especially the relations in color between the different surfaces. Shameless plug for a more consistently colored image:

http://maps.imagico.de/#map=7/24.637/6.746&lang=en&l=sat&ui=0

@CjMalone - what you make of the spread in hourly rates that can be observed is obviously a political question. I am really glad that we do also have applications asking for roughly a realistic market rate for paid work. That means the OSMF will need to position itself in that regard. That is not a very thankful task for the committee of course but it is also one you could see coming given the board, when setting up microgrants program, has specifically allowed paid work as part of the grants without specifying concrete parameters for that.

Since it seems the advise at the end of my previous comment is by some understood differently from how it is meant i will try to clarify by re-stating it in German.

Beim Lesen der Bewerbungen für die Microgrants werden viele vermutlich - bewusst oder unbewusst - geneigt sein, sich auf Grundlage der Bewerbungen ein Bild von den Menschen zu machen, die diese Bewerbungen eingereicht haben. Ich möchte davon abraten. Die Vergabe der OSMF-Microgrants geschieht wie ja alle sehen können im Wettbewerb der Bewerber zueinander. Alle, die sich bewerben, werden versuchen, die eigene Bewerbung so zu gestalten, dass ihre Chancen maximiert werden. Dass hierbei im Vordergrund steht, das eigene Vorhaben in einem besonders gutem Licht erscheinen zu lassen und nicht, dem Leser ein ausgeglichenes Bild von der Person des Bewerbers/der Bewerberin zu vermitteln, dürfte offensichtlich sein. Schlussfolgerungen aus den Bewerbungen über die wirtschaftliche oder persönliche Situation der Bewerber zu ziehen ist nicht ratsam.

No. If i have to guess i’d say our very different views on these things stem largely from very different exposures to cultures and living conditions very different from our own current circumstances.

There is no simple relationship between economic and social privileges and available free time. Not even in a country like the UK or Germany let alone globally.

If you want to get to know people, learn about their life, their hopes, their concerns and their values money is about the worst choice as a catalyst you can think of. Money tends to bring out the worst in people - like greed, fraud and disguise. However you read the microgrants applications, don’t make the mistake of assessing the people personally based on how they write an application to get money from the OSMF.

If you’re going to fall back on “copyright law is long established”

I am not, as said valid moral arguments can be both made for and against copyright - both in general as well as in specific domains like databases. I would be willing to discuss that - not here and not in lieu of the discussion on behavior regulation though - but only if you are seriously interested in deriving decisions from the result of this discussion and not if it is purely an academic exercise.

I’m having trouble parsing this. 😖 Can you rephrase?

What you cited was an illustration. My main question was to you to point me to a single anti-discrimination law that regulates person-to-person interaction on equal level, i.e. not in a hierarchy (like between adults and kids and not between normal people and people with some official function or business operators etc.).

Various rape laws apply to people based on their age, or mental disabilities. Some anti-discrimination laws only apply “in one direction”.

Please be specific. We are talking about legislation that has the purpose to protect human rights according to the UDHR by sanctioning certain person-to-person communication only if it happens in a discriminating fashion but not in general.

Rory, i can completely accept if you don’t want to have a moral argument here but asking me to provide moral justification for arbitrary things feels a bit too much like being asked to jump through hoops just for your amusement. I already mentioned that the moral justification of copyright (and hence the use of copyright to impose and enforce a license) is a separate (and open ended) discussion. But this has absolutely no bearing on the matter of behavior regulation in social interaction and communication.

Data protecition law does prevent me from ”doing whatever I want with any data they contribute to OSM”.

No, as said it restricts what i may contribute to OSM, it does not further restrict what i can do with stuff that i may and do contribute to OSM.

Nearly all anti-discrimination law regulations behavior in person-to-person communication & actions.

I would be eager to see you point me to a single law that does so. As mentioned the AGG explicitly does not. Is there any legislation where i (as a private individual) am forbidden to treat you in a certain way because you are not a woman unless the way i treat you is forbidden per se also if i equally treat everyone this way?

Ah! If you can rely on the Berne Convention, then I’ll reply with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. QED. 🙂

Comparing the UDHR as the non-binding declaration of ideals to the Berne Convention as a concrete agreement on binding rules of course done not work.

I also don’t see how the UDHR stipulates behavior regulation of person-to-person communication on equal level beyond what is covered by criminal law typically like slander etc.

As i have pointed out in osm.org/user/imagico/diary/392072#comment46519 practical attempts at implementing the UDHR into law in some form beyond criminal law generally does not apply to person-to-person relationships on equal level. And as said there i would be very much in favor of the OSMF introducing practically meaningful non-discrimination requirements to organizations like itself or companies w.r.t. individual community members.

“Any mapper may do whatever they want with any data they contribute to OSM” doesn’t work with the EU’s Data Protection Directive (& Charter of Fundamental Rights). Can you justify throwing away these privacy rights? (other examples: military bases, copyright, family law report restrictions, defamation/libel, trade secrets)

I think your argument is flawed here. What you cite as moral/legal constraints limits what you may contribute to OSM in the first place, it does not restrict what you can do with data you may contribute to OSM.

I think this is a sidestepping the actual topic of behavior regulation quite a lot but i will indulge for a bit.

can you provide a justification for this rule?

First of all - i don’t have to. This is what the law says, at least in all countries accepting the Berne Convention. Independent of that the moral justification for a person’s right to freely use their own recordings of thoughts and observations in my eyes stems pretty fundamentally from our self image as literate persons. Denying people this right would essentially amount to denying them the right for literacy. Even if you’d question this as a fundamental human right it would be blatantly inconsequential to within OSM - which pretty much requires literacy and the ability to record thoughts and observations from a mapper - to deny them the right for this for their contributions.

Note this is not the same as the moral justification for copyright, which creates an exclusivity for using their own work for the creator. That is something people have different opinions on which you could indeed discuss from a moral perspective. But that is not what you asked and that would also for the most part not be relevant within the context of OSM since the OSM license does make only very limited use of this exclusivity in principle granted by the law.

Moral considerations regarding the data license are mostly concerned with the rights of the mapper attached to their contributions. That is fundamentally different from the moral implications of imposing codified rules on the communication and social interaction between people.

Also the data license also not in any way restrict the mapper in what they may do with their contributions - they are completely free to allow others to use them beyond the scope of the license.

Regarding the need to justify behavior regulation - as an OSMF board member you do not need to justify decisions on that for communication within the OSMF - that is a political decision and you have the mandate from the OSMF members for that. Applying such rules to the whole OSM community however is a different story.

I’m trying to parse this. If we have zero behavior regulation, if we have no floor, no bare minimum, then (for example) OSMers who persistently physically assault OSMers at SotM must not be banned from the project (right?).

I commented on that (the specific case of a physical meeting) at length i think back in 2018

If we have no bare minimum for the whole project, then everything is allowed, right?

If you regard ‘allowed’ as a legal term then no, everyone of us lives in a jurisdiction that permits and forbids certain behavior.

If you look at it from a moral perspective then the answer is equally no - unless you subscribe to a nihilistic view of ethics.

IMO it’s obvious that from a consequentialist view, we should have a global list of unacceptable behaviours.

One of the main problem with consequentialist approaches is that they are practically limited by your imperfection in predicting the consequences. To put it bluntly: If you are sufficiently ignorant you may be able to formulate behavior rules that are universally justifiable under a certain consequentialist framework. This is in particular a problem here because while you will likely be tempted to look only at the immediate consequences the rules you want to impose have, the communicative implications would reach much further than the actual rules. Or put more simply even: If you want to take a consequentialist evaluation of policy seriously you cannot only look at the intentional consequences, you also have to look at the unintentional ones - including those you might be too narrow minded to see. Otherwise you end up with the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

Since we all have our limitations in predicting consequences, in particular in the context of a project as unique and unprecedented as OpenStreetMap, i don’t think a purely consequentialist view is practically useful here. Still i would be interested in hearing what specific rule of behavior (and how it is meant to be imposed practically) you would consider justifiable from a consequentialist view.