Revue des autres blogs (non sélectionnés)

Community survey on 2020 OSM Foundation board decisions and current topics - il y a 8 heures 1 min

Would you like to provide feedback on decisions that the OSM Foundation board made in 2020 and on current topics? The board has prepared a survey and is asking for your input in order to set priorities.

You can see a copy of the questions in English here.

The survey is available in 13 languages so far. Image by D. Kazazi, CC-BY-SA 3.0. Official OSM logo by Ken Vermette, CC-BY-SA 3.0 & trademarks apply. Languages

Thanks to volunteer translators, the survey is available in thirteen languages so far:

Helping with translations

If you would like to provide a translation to a language not on the list, or to suggest a correction in one of the translations, please email

If you would like to help with translations of non-English answers to English, future surveys or blogposts, please send an email to with subject: Helping with translations in [language].

  • You need to provide an email address (to receive a token) and solve an equation in order to access the survey.
  • There are 18 questions, most are multiple-choice and mandatory.
  • There is an optional section with demographic questions.
  • There are several sections. You cannot go back to the previous section but you can resume later.
  • Please note that pages with background information linked from the survey are in English.
    • If the pages are on the OSM wiki, you are welcome to translate them.
    • If they are on the OSMF website and you would like to provide translations, please email the Communication Working Group at with subject: Translating OSMF pages in [language].

There is discussion about the survey on the “talk” mailing list, where you are welcome to provide feedback. You can register to the talk mailing list here. All past messages of the list are available here.

  • Read the LimeSurvey privacy policy.
  • The answers can be accessed by current board members and the administrative assistant and will be processed by the board.
  • The email addresses and names (if provided) of participants won’t be published after the survey ends.

The general results will be published after the survey ends. Past surveys are listed here.

Deadline for participation: 14 February 2021.

Even if you don’t participate, it would be appreciated if you spread the word about the survey.

Thank you in advance

The OpenStreetMap Foundation is a not-for-profit organisation, formed to support the OpenStreetMap Project. It is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data for anyone to use and share. The OpenStreetMap Foundation owns and maintains the infrastructure of the OpenStreetMap project, is financially supported by membership fees and donations, and organises the annual, international State of the Map conference. It has no full-time employees and it is supporting the OpenStreetMap project through the work of our volunteer Working Groups. Please consider becoming a member of the Foundation.

My would-be answers to the OSMF board survey - lun 18 Jan 2021 - 17:02

The OSMF board started a survey of the OSM community and in tradition from previous surveys i wanted to publish my answers here. However as the title indicates already i did not actually participate in the survey this time because in most of the eight main questions i did not feel like the form of the survey gave me the ability to accurately answer the question. And answering the questions is mandatory, i could not participate in the survey without answering them. Therefore i decided to refrain from submitting answers which would in the majority of the question not have correctly represented my view on the question.

I will explain why that is the case and what my answers actually are in the following.

Just to avoid any misunderstandings - just because i did not submit the survey does not mean i suggest to anyone else to not do so either. On the contrary, if you feel like you can articulate your view on the question in the survey in a meaningful manner then you should do so.

For reference - the full survey in English can be read without registration on

Question F1:

I already commented at length on the so called Diversity Statement issued by the OSMF board and the Committee created in that context. But the question is not about the Diversity Statement (which is not even mentioned in the notes for the question) but about the creation of the committee and about tasking the LCCWG with recommending a response to a recently published pamphlet critical of the OSM community.

As i have written in my comment on the Diversity Statement i saw chances in the creation of that committtee but evidently the committee so far did not live up to these hopes. That however does not make the creation of that committee in itself necessarily a bad decision. Equally, i think the board asking a working group for advice on how to react to critique of the OSM community is not a bad thing to do. It is evidently not appropriate or wise as the main reaction to the mentioned pamphlet though.

I think the board has so far not made meaningful efforts to address the OSMFs own failure to adequately represent the OSM community in its full, in particular cultural, diversity in its internal structure and culture and even further has in the past year turned into a culturally more narrow organization focussing more on representing special interests in the OpenStreetMap project rather than providing a neutral supportive environment for the whole OSM community to profit from.

So i am definitely not neutral on the question, i have a strong opinion (and strong arguments) on the matter of diversity in the OSMF - yet as said i neither agree nor disagree with the specific measures the question refers to. Hence i can’t give an answer to the question as asked that properly represents my view on the matter.

Question F2:

The question is a bit difficult to parse because of the amount of partly ambiguous subtext contained. First it is centered about the framing of “increased costs of maintaining the platform”. That increase in expenses is of course the result of specific decisions made by the board. The question however frames these costs as a matter of fact not subject to discussion and asked for agreement or disagreement with the way these expenses are meant to be financed by large targeted donations.

The list of things included in the costs is also a bit weird and prone to misunderstanding. It separates ‘software’ and ‘personnel’. I strongly hope that the OSMF does not pay any singificant amount of money on licensing software and by ‘software’ in this context they mean paying developers for doing open source software development - which in my eyes is the same as ‘personnel’.

My answer to the question as i explained i understand it would be that i have a differentiated opinion on the decision of spending more money. In the way the OSMF board has approached this it is in large parts counterproductive because it massively interfers with the social dynamics within the project (and within the OSMF - see here and here for a discussion of parts of the problem). More generous spending for neutral infrastructure for everyone in the OSM community to use under their own initiative i would OTOH see rather positively.

The sourcing of money from external business interests i see very critically - so on that dimension i would be inclined in answering the question with a strong disagreement. But that critical view is not limited to the targeted donations, it in a similar fashion applies to the income received from corporate memberships. And i don’t think it necessarily has to be a problem to receive money from outside interests if the organization does not depend on it and has the structural robustness as well as internal checks and balances to avoid the money having an influence on policy decisions. Both the framing of the question and OSMF politics during the past year however indicate that the current board sees financial dependency on corporations (and therefore their economic influence on OSMF politics) as inevitable.

So again i have a strong opinion on the whole matter but again that goes in a dimension more or less orthogonal to the question asked.

Question F3:

In this case i do not only consider the framing of the question a bit weird but outright inaccurate. With the exception of Potlatch maybe the specific contracts made with the developers of the mentioned software products were on anything but small-scale, one-time, limited-scope, short-term projects, they were small-scale, short-term financial contributions to rather long term projects of extensive scope. Also i don’t think the statement that “these products had previously been maintained wholly by volunteers” is accurate. At least in case of osm2pgsql i think Jochen (and possibly in the past also Paul) have done osm2pgsql development as part of paid work.

I explained my thoughts on the decision to hand pick these three projects from multiple perspectives already and as said here while i consider it definitely valuable to support these three developers for their work on these projects i consider the way the OSMF board approaches this as an ad hoc decicion to support people “whose work we know and enjoy” highly problematic.

So in this case my anwer would have been quite clearly a strong disagree - though i see a serious risk that this would not be interpreted in the differentiated fashion it is meant.

Question F4:

Here the framing of the question is once again prone to be misunderstood - and in this case also strongly leading the respondent to a certain desirable answer. Historically at least two people (Bryan and Quincy) have been working on iD development while being paid by external interests. And putting into the foreground that control of iD maintenance is shifted from a third party to the OSM community (which still remains to be seen if that is de facto the case) is massively leading the survey participant to a positive answer.

My answer to this question is again more differentiated than the simple one-dimensional black and white “you are either for or against us” design allows me to formulate. I think the key here is - and this has been discussed at length in the past already - that the OSMF board did not look at the matter broadly enough to make a qualified decision considering how much influence this is going to have. The dispute about the dominance of iD in OSM editing, what problems this brings with it in the long term and how this can be dealt with is both older and broader than the narrow perspective the board took on that. And much of this problem will still exist after Quincy is being paid by the OSMF and will come back to us in the future in the long term.

So like with the previous question my answer here would be a strong disagree - which again however would insufficiently communicate my opinion on this matter.

By the way - i would like to mention in advance that it would be very interesting to know how the answers to this question correlate to the question if the respondent has ever used an editor other than iD and if they are even aware that such editors exist.

Question F5:

My spontaneous reaction to this is that based on what happened it seems that on multiple levels the board disagreed with their own decision here. I mean both the current board evidently disagreeing with the framework for the microgrants program as put in place by the previous board but not being willing to revise that framework as a result of that and the board disagreeing with the decisions of the committee they tasked with the decision to issue the microgrants to applicants as evidenced but financing some of the applications not chosen outside the program essentially overruling the committee.

But i am digressing. I think the microgrants program failed to live up to its potential so far by not sufficiently involving the overall OSM community in the whole process - which was largely caused by practical implementation being much less transparent than originally promised and by the fact that contrary to the original plans of taking inspiration from the FOSSGIS microgrants (Förderanträge) it was ultimately modelled mostly directly on the HOT microgrants program.

If no lessons are taken from this experience through an honest critical analysis of the failures of the first round (for which i see no indication so far) i think it will not have been much more than a waste of quite a lot of money in the long term. In principle however i think the concept of microgrants has a lot of potential when used well.

And i don’t see any way to enter this view into the survey as it is designed.

Question S1:

This question asked me to rank seven tasks for the coming year in their order of priority. I have two big problems with that:

  • First it implies that these are the only tasks of importance right now. Why don’t i have the possibility to specify other things that i think should have priority?
  • Second none of the tasks specified is actually a task in the sense that you can objectively determine if the task has been fulfilled or not. They are topics at best - and fairly vague ones in addition. Different survey participants will read very different things into each of them and they will end up ranking very different things which still get aggregated into the same survey result.

But none the less i will try to do my best briefly commenting on each of the topics here:

  • Stability of core infrastructure (hardware, software, human capital). If you read this together with question F2 it seems quite clear that the board views this as code for spending money. I don’t think that this should have priority. If i ignore this coded meaning i think core infrastructure in the narrow sense (i.e. the infrastructure necessary for the main OSM data pipeline API -> main database -> planet files + diffs) should have very high priority for the OSMF. But because of that this high priority work should also not be conflated with the other lower priority functions the OSMF covers although we do not depend on the OSMF for them.
  • Takeover protection. I stated my view on that already in the pointed way that the takeover has already happened. So it does not make much sense to focus on trying to protect against some external hostile takeover attempt. The important thing would be to restructure the OSMF to a more federated design with less centralized control over things to avoid special interests which are already fairly massively present within the OSMF to gain a lot of influence on key assets of the OSMF (data rights, contributor database, policy and other official public communication).
  • Outreach to Local Chapters and Communities. I am afraid this is fairly vague. What the OSMF board should invest much more energy in than in the past year is symmetric, two-way, open channel communication with the people from different parts of the community. Listening to what people have to say and engaging in open, argument based discourse with the community members. It seems however the term “Outreach” is indicative for a much more top-down, asymmetric communication and it is aiming at organized interests rather than talking to individuals.
  • Attribution Guidelines. Well - i summarized the problem here already. The OSMF board needs to decide if they want to follow the money that feeds them and clash with large parts of the OSM community as a result or if they want to decide representing the OSM community and risk an open conflict with economically powerful special interests. What you should not do is invest a lot of time in finding a way to do neither. That will not lead to a long term solution.
  • Recruitment for Working Groups. Again - i discussed that topic already at length. This is largely a home made problem. That fact that the board thinks about the need to recruit people for working groups which traditionally form and recruit themselves on their own is indicative of that. Like with the previous topic you need to decide if you want to view this as a numbers game and try to recruit people through external interests or if you want to address the problem that the OSMF becomes increasingly unattractive for large parts of the OSM community in substance by changing the OSMF to become more attractive again for hobbyist volunteers who are not motivated by external interests.
  • Fund-raising: I think framing this as a task on its own fails to see that the need for it stems exclusively from the declared need to spend large amounts of money. IMO an open discussion on the spending of money (which i think has not really happened yet) needs to preceed any plans for organized fund raising. Otherwise you will end up with a vicious circle of spending and fund raising that will detatch itself from the question what the overall justification for it is.
  • Brexit: Brexit itself is history so this very much depends on what problems exactly you want to address here. I have mentioned that i would consider the idea of moving the OSMF from the UK to the EU as a good opportunity for implementing important structural changes for a more resilient and more decentralized OSMF. If the board is willing to address that this would deserve to get high priority IMO.

Which leads me to the list of tasks that i find missing on that list:

  • serious corruption prevention that does not rely on the constant ability of everyone in the OSMF to recognize if they have a conflict of interest (which as evidenced multiple times in the past year does not work).
  • more transparency - essentially rolling back the roll-back in transparency that has happened during the past year.
  • actively breaking the English language and Anglo-American cultural dominance in the OSMF.
  • fundamentally restructuring the OSMF to decentralize the power structure and give local communities a substantial (and not just ceremonial) say in OSMF decisions.
  • moving back from seeing every decision as a negotiation between interests to having an argument based discourse and trying to find the best decision based on arguments and reason.
Question S2:

This question was one that made me really angry reading it.

As a general rule whenever someone starts a statement with “Some OSM community members…” i would say what follows is almost certainly incorrect. It implies that what follows is a common sentiment without being willing to specify who the purported community members are and what the arguments behind their view are. It also often, as also in this case, reduced a complex and multi-faceted question on which many community members have a differentiated views to a simplistic and one dimensional black and white decision.

What makes me specifically angry about this question is that i have pointed out the error of this simplistic look on the matter and that both the motivation of those pushing for automated data generation in mapping in OSM and those being critical towards these efforts (though typically not in general of use of computational methods in mapping) are not as one dimensional.

And then it gives you four options to answer or ‘no opinion’ and does not even have the courtesy to allow for a ‘none of the above’ option. That communicates that people have to have either one of the views on this matter the board has come up with or they have to have no opinion on it. Any other opinion is considered essentially invalid.

Like many community members i have talked to about the topic i see a lot of potential and in the long term a lot of room for increased efficiency in and better accessibility of mapping in use of more sophisticated computational methods in mapping (or in other words: Methods that allow mappers to document their local knowledge on a higher level of abstraction than placing individual nodes and tags and to use computer ressources to better support this). At the same time i am highly critical of attempts by organized actors in the OSM context to use the increasing demand for tools in that domain to increasingly try to proprietarize mapping technology as well as to abuse the influence control over mapping technology has to steer volunteer mappers in their interest. Despite the widespread openwashing corporate actors practice in that domain they universally keep training data and methodology proprietary. I am not aware of any practical cases where so called machine learning or artificial intelligence technology is used for mapping in OSM where the local hobby mapper has full control over the technology. That is the core of the problem - which the question does not even mention - not the technology itself.

So my answer to the question would be:

… inform themselves about the differentiated opinions on the subject within the OSM community and the motives behind pushes for these methods into OSM from outside actors in pursuit of their own short term economic interests and the long term risks these pose to OpenStreetMap in terms of control of mapping technology and based on that to consider regulating use of such methods (obviously after fixing the current non-effective regulation of organized activities in OSM in general).

Question S3:

After the previous question has already caused me getting upset this one is just the icing on the cake now. Like the previous it starts conspicuously with “Some OSM community members…”.

The question does not even show a hint of understanding of the cartographic or social challenges of community map design on the side of those asking the question nor does it indicate that such understanding is a necessary condition for giving a qualified answer. The way the question is posed indicates this to be purely an economic question - which completely ignores the technological, artistic and social reality of community map design.

Obviously you could write a lot on the whole matter (and me - and also others - have done so in parts already). Discussion on what the term ‘vector tiles’ could refer to alone is a very extensive question. But i will try to keep it brief. All of the options offered as answers would fail to address the issue the question is about - no matter what exactly that issue is.

As so often my anwer here would be the suggestion to start by having an open discussion. In particular in this case that discussion should start by establishing the difference between the map layers featured on and the map style(s) hosted on OSMF infrastructure (which the question as is simply conflates into one). For the latter the first aim of the discussion should be to determine what the goals of the OSMF hosting one or more maps actually are. In OSM-Carto i had after i became a maintainer created a document explaining what the purposes and goals of the style are and that document is still valid today. But it is us describing as independent OSM-Carto maintainers what our goals in style development are. There has never been a public discussion in the OSMF what the goals of the OSMF are in hosting this style on OSMF infrastructure (in the context of tile usage policies we have had plenty of discussion on what the aim is of the OSMF offering tiles for external use are but that is a different matter of course). If we in OSM-Carto would suddenly decide to pursue very different goals with our project or if a different style development project would approach the OSMF and request that their style is rendered on OSMF infrastructure instead of OSM-Carto it is not clear based on what considerations the OSMF would make a decision. And if, and only if there are clear goals established for the OSMF on hosting map styles on their infrastructure we could start discussing in a meaningful and productive manner what technological means are most suitable for serving these goals (which is what the question seems to ultimately aim at in substance) and if the OSMF can do something productive to support either technology development in that domain or use of existing technology by community map style development projects.

Question D1-D5:

I am a male OSMF and local chapter member (and also a ‘member’ of a commercial company using OSM data - or more accurately owner and manager) currently located in southwestern Germany. I occasionally map, communicate, use data, develop software and operate hardware and am involved in the project for 5-10 years.


As i have already mentioned on the talk mailing list the OSMF board evidently put quite a lot of work into this survey. Therefore it is particularly regrettable that no review happened on the survey design to iron out the wrinkles that i pointed out above. Relatively little work in tuning the answering options and rephrasing some of the questions to less ambiguity, to being less leading and more neutral and supplementing the provided background information to be less selective and maybe adding a few topical knowledge questions to gauge from what background respondents approach the questions asked, could have helped immensely to generate more valuable and meaningful results.

The most fundamental issue with the design of this survey is probably asking for an agree/disagree answer on specific yet complex and multi-faceted political decisions of the board. As understandable as it is that the board wants to know what opinion people have on these decisions it is doubtful that this will in this form yield meaningful results because (a) as illustrated above many people will have more differentiated opinions on these matters than a simple position on a one-dimensional agree/disagree scale and (b) because of this.

In any case - in conclusion i would like to point out again, and i hope my comments on the questions above illustrate that further, that even a very well designed survey is no substitute of actually arguing and reasoning with people from diverse backgrounds to determine the best course of action. As i have written in my survey comments back in 2019 already:

What you have to keep in mind […] is that a survey always exclusively transports wants and desires, it can by design never serve as an instrument of arguments and reasoning. Reducing communication to a survey cuts you off from arguments and reasoning and prevents you from understanding the underlying motives for people’s desires.

So maybe the survey can serve as an encouragement to people to engage in more open discussion on matters of OSMF politics because they realize that a survey like this alone does not really allow them to articulate their views on such matters nor does it allow you to understand in substance how others think about these things.

Letzter Bericht aus dem Advisory-Board - lun 18 Jan 2021 - 13:41

Der FOSSGIS wird voraussichtlich im März seine Mitgliederversammlung veranstalten - dieses Jahr natürlich virtuell - was ich ungeachtet der oft durchaus netten Atmosphäre, die auf FOSSGIS-Versammlungen traditionell herrscht, für eine gute Entwicklung halte, da sie deutlich mehr Leuten, insbesondere auch aus der OSM-Community, die Chance gibt, daran teilzunehmen.

Für die Mitgliederversammlung möchte ich hiermit, diesmal aus Gründen, die ich erläutern werde, schon deutlich im voraus, meinen traditionellen Bericht als Vertreter des FOSSGIS im Advisory-Board der OSMF geben.

Dieser Bericht fällt dieses Jahr sehr knapp aus, denn wie schon im letzten Jahr erwähnt, ist das Advisory-Board der OSMF als Ganzes so gut wie tot. Der Vorstand konnte sich bis jetzt nicht dazu aufraffen, das Gremium tatsächlich offiziell zu schließen, aber seit der OSMF-Vorstand mit den Firmenvertretern im Advisory-Board regelmäßig nicht öffentliche Gespräche führt, hat im Advisory-Board als Ganzem nichts mehr von Substanz stattgefunden.

Was im letzten Jahr neu eingeführt wurde, sind die 10-Minuten-Präsentationen der lokalen OSM-Communities in den öffentlichen OSMF-Vorstands-Sitzungen. Wir waren da im August dran, Interessierte aus dem Verein waren vorher zu einem Mumble-Meeting eingeladen, um zu diskutieren, was wir da präsentieren wollen. Die Präsentation hat Hanna aus dem FOSSGIS-Vorstand gehalten. Neben dieser regulären, dauerhaften Rolle der lokalen Vertretungen, welche zunächst im Grunde die einzige Rolle war, die aus dem Advisory-Board erwachsen ist (die Unternehmens-Vertreter bekamen ein monatliches Privat-Meeting, die lokalen Vertretungen einen 10-Minuten-Präsentations-Slot in einem öffentlichen Meeting) gab es dann im Oktober noch ziemlich ad hoc eine Einladung zu einem Live-Meeting der Vertreter der local chapters mit einigen Mitgliedern des Vorstands. Es gibt von diesem Treffen noch kein Protokoll, anwesend waren von den lokalen Vertretungen neben mir so weit ich mich erinnere Rob von OSM UK, Dermot von OSM Ireland und Edoardo von OSM Oceania. Es wurden einige Themen angeschnitten, aber auch aufgrund der Tatsache, dass nur wenige Vertreter der lokalen Vertretungen anwesend waren und da kein klares Mandat existierte, welche Funktion diese Art von Treffen haben soll, gab es keine Ergebnisse von Substanz oder einen detaillierteren, vorbereiteten Austausch von Ideen, wie es für ein Berater-Gremium wünschenswert wäre. Ob das zu einer regelmäßigen Veranstaltung werden soll, ist noch nicht klar. Daneben gibt es jetzt in der OSMF auch eine wieder neu geschaffene Arbeitsgruppe LCCWG, wo einige Vertreter von lokalen Vertretungen sich engagieren, deren Funktion in der OSMF aber auch recht unklar ist und wo anders als im Advisory-Board nicht alle lokalen Vertretungen gleichberechtigt eine Stimme haben, die kulturell und sprachlich viel homogener ist und und deren Aktivitäten bis jetzt auch recht spezielle Interessen vertreten.

Insgesamt kann man die Situation der lokalen Vertretungen in der OSMF derzeit also als recht fluide und undefiniert betrachten. Das birgt Potential, Entwicklungen anzustoßen aber keine Verlässlichkeit was Rollen und Einfluss-Möglichkeiten betrifft. Vor diesem Hintergrund hatten wir im letzten Jahr schon ein paar Ansätze gemacht, von Seite des FOSSGIS außerhalb des Advisory-Board Stellungnahmen zu aktuellen Themen in der OSMF abzugeben. Dazu haben wir einige OSMF-Stammtische auf Mumble abgehalten. Als tatsächliche Stellungnahme des FOSSGIS wurde am Ende nur etwas zu bezahlten Kräften in der OSMF veröffentlicht (auch auf Englisch), aber auch die Diskussionen zu anderen Themen waren nützlich. Ich war an diesen Diskussionen beteiligt, aber nicht federführend - Hanna und Michael (Nakaner) haben hier auch erheblich zu beigetragen. Der Unterschied ist natürlich, dass sowas immer nur das Resultat einer Diskussion in der deutschen OSM-Community unter sich ist, während die Idee des Advisory-Board es ursprünglich war, durch einen Austausch zwischen den verschiedenen lokalen Vertretungen Ratschläge und Ideen zu entwickeln, die darüber hinaus gehen, was aus den einzelnen lokalen Communities für sich genommen entwickelt werden kann.

Auf der Mitgliederversammlung des FOSSGIS steht auch die Wahl der Vertretung des FOSSGIS im Advisory-Board an. Und auch wenn das Gremium wie erläutert als Ganzes weitgehend tot ist, fungiert diese Vertretung für den OSMF-Vorstand doch als Ansprechpartner und sollte deshalb vom FOSSGIS und der deutschen OSM-Community produktiv genutzt werden.

Ich verrichte diese Aufgabe jetzt seit drei Jahren und habe schon letztes Jahr angekündigt, dass ich es gut fände, wenn da jemand anderes übernehmen würde und frischen Wind in die Rolle einbringt. Das möchte ich jetzt forcieren und kündige deshalb an, dass ich für die Rolle bei der Wahl im März nicht mehr antreten möchte.

Vor diesem Hintergrund möchte ich noch einen kritischen Gesamt-Rückblick auf die letzten drei Jahre anschließen. Bin ich mit dem, was ich während dieser Zeit erreichen konnte, zufrieden? Sicherlich nicht in jeder Hinsicht. Was mich im Rückblick am meisten ärgert ist, dass ich es nicht geschafft habe, mit anderen lokalen Vertretungen ein Gegengewicht zur englischsprachigen Dominanz in der OSMF zu organisieren. Dies hat sicherlich viel mit der Sprach-Barriere zu tun. Dem FOSSGIS käme hier als dem mit großem Abstand größtem nicht englischsprachigem local chapter eine zentrale Rolle zu, dennoch wäre es für eine solche Initiative essentiell, sich mit anderen nicht englischsprachigen lokalen Vertretungen zu koordinieren, hier insbesondere natürlich die französische, was durch entsprechende Sprachkenntnisse deutlich einfacher wäre.

Ich habe allerdings auch den Eindruck, dass im FOSSGIS der Wille und die Bereitschaft, eine solche Rolle als Gegengewicht gegen die englischsprachige Dominanz in der OSMF einzunehmen, recht begrenzt sind und viele mit der Situation wie sie ist eigentlich recht zufrieden sind und wenig Bedarf nach substantiellen Änderungen sehen. Meine Wahrnehmung, dass aus der Größe und Bedeutung der deutschen OSM-Community hier eine moralische Verpflichtung resultiert, sich für mehr sprachliche und kulturelle Vielfalt und Repräsentation in der OSMF generell einzusetzen, ist eher ein persönlicher Spleen von mir als eine im FOSSGIS verbreitete Überzeugung. Und natürlich sprechen viele im FOSSGIS Englisch besser als jede andere Fremdsprache und die meisten fühlen sich auch der britischen und amerikanischen Kultur näher als den meisten anderen einschließlich der europäischen Kulturen.

Positiv verbuchen möchte ich vor allem, dass es mir während der drei Jahre recht erfolgreich gelungen ist, zu vermeiden, dass das Advisory-Board zu einer Lobbying-Plattform für Unternehmens-Interessen verkommt. Die Bedeutung dieses Einflusses der Repräsentanten der lokalen Communities ist denke ich vielen erst in Nachhinein klar geworden, als, nachdem der OSMF-Vorstand begonnen hat, sich separat mit den Unternehmensvertretern zu treffen, diese sofort begonnen haben, diese Treffen rücksichtslos zum Lobbying und für Einschüchterungs-Versuche gegenüber dem Vorstand zu nutzen. Dass der wichtigste Verdienst aus meiner Zeit im Advisory-Board es also möglicherweise ist, etwas verhindert zu haben, anstatt positiv etwas erreicht zu haben, ist natürlich etwas bedenklich. Überspitzt-kritisch zusammengefasst könnte man auch sagen, dass das Advisory-Board ein vierjähriger Stand-off zwischen den kurzfristigen Profitinteressen größtenteils amerikanischer Unternehmen und den Wertvorstellungen größtenteils europäischer Craft-Mapper-Communities war. Ob das ja jetzt definitiv eingetretene Ende dieses Patts langfristig zu positiven oder negativen Entwicklungen führt, wird sich erst noch herausstellen.

Was sollte ein Kandidat/eine Kandidatin für diese Rolle an Qualifikation mit sich bringen? Neben Verständnis für und Erfahrungen mit der deutschen OSM-Community und Erfahrungen mit der OSMF halte ich möglichst breite Sprachkenntnisse für recht bedeutend. Ich glaube, dass meine eigene Wirksamkeit, im Advisory-Board positiv etwas zu bewirken, vor allem auch dadurch begrenzt war, dass der Austausch und die Koordination mit den anderen lokalen Vertretungen nur auf Deutsch oder auf Englisch möglich war. Wer hier zusätzliche sprachliche Fähigkeiten vorweisen kann, wäre enorm im Vorteil. Daneben sind denke ich vor allem ein gutes Urteilsvermögen und eine Unabhängigkeit von wirtschaftlichen Partikularinteressen im OSM-Umfeld sowie eine Fähigkeit, sich in der englischsprachigen Kommunikation mit Muttersprachlern artikulieren und behaupten zu können, von Nutzen.

Was ich auf jeden Fall anregen möchte, ist, dass diese Funktion des FOSSGIS nicht nebenbei von einem Mitglied des FOSSGIS-Vorstands übernommen wird, sondern eine separate Rolle bleibt.

Wer sich für die Aufgabe interessiert, aber nicht sicher ist, ob das zu ihr oder ihm passt, kann mich gerne nach meiner Meinung oder zusätzlichen Informationen fragen.

L'enquête 2021 de l'OSMF sur la communauté OSM est ouverte - lun 18 Jan 2021 - 11:30

Post d’origine traduit vu le choix étrange de poster cela sur un journal au lieu de choisir un outil multilingue comme le wiki osmf

L’enquête 2021 de l’OSMF sur la communauté OSM a ouverte. Elle sera ouverte à la participation jusqu’au 14 février. Veuillez surfer sur les URL suivants pour vous inscrire à l’enquête. Vous recevrez en retour un courriel avec un jeton à usage unique qui vous permettra de participer à l’enquête.

Veuillez noter que les traductions en persan (farsi) et turc sont des traductions automatiques à 100%, via Microsoft Translator. Je m’excuse par avance pour toute erreur, car il s’agit de langues que je ne connais pas et je n’ai pas pu trouver de traducteurs bénévoles pour réviser et corriger les traductions automatiques. Il y aura des erreurs, mais j’espère qu’il ne s’agit pas de graves erreurs de traduction qui rendent l’enquête impossible à comprendre. Si vous pouvez m’aider à réviser les traductions en persan ou en turc, veuillez m’envoyer un message.

Veuillez amplifier ce message dans toute la communauté OSM - faites passer le mot ! Veuillez utiliser vos canaux de communication préférés pour encourager tous les membres de la communauté OSM à travers le monde à participer à cette enquête ! Je vous remercie d’avance pour cela.

Anglais (Langue de base) :

Chinois (traditionnel ; Taiwan) :

Français :

En allemand :

En japonais :

En coréen :

Persan :

Polonais :

Portugais (brésilien) :

En russe :

En espagnol :

En turc :

=== MISE À JOUR ===

En italien :

Meilleures salutations, et joyeuse cartographie !

GNS 資料問題 - lun 18 Jan 2021 - 3:04

這一篇日記文來看,GNS 資料就有錯誤的情形。

Upgrading to Vistas 2.0 - lun 18 Jan 2021 - 1:00

Today we are making available Mapillary Vistas 2.0, a major semantic annotation upgrade for our street-level image dataset of 25.000 images from around the world. We are increasing the label complexity by almost doubling the amount of semantic categories, and additionally provide an approximate depth order of objects shown in the scenes.

Passage des RD de l'Allier de 80 à 90 km/h - dim 17 Jan 2021 - 21:09

Le département de l’Allier a repassé, fin 2020, l’ensemble de ses routes départementales de 80 à 90 km/h.

Au fur et à mesure des modifications effectuées :

  • passage de maxspeed=80 à maxspeed=90 des routes départementales concernées et éligibles
  • ajout, pour raison historique, d’un deuxième attribut pour montrer que pendant la période allant du 1er juillet 2018 (entrée en vigueur sur toutes les routes à double sens sans séparateur central) au 10 décembre 2020 (veille de l’entrée en vigueur des 90 km/h sur les RD de l’Allier) qui est : maxspeed:2018-07-01–2020-12-10=80
  • si un seul sens, ajout de :forward ou :backward après maxspeed

Voluntarios da Patria - dim 17 Jan 2021 - 16:16

Rua Voluntários da Pátria no bairro de Santana 100% Numerado com pontos de interesses e pontos de táxi e ônibus inclusos, adicionado iluminação e tipo de piso

好看视频批量上传qilinseorj麒麟 - dim 17 Jan 2021 - 15:44

昨夜闲潭梦落花,可怜春半不还家。浪侥驳滩夜资市 滟滟随波千万里,何处春江无月明!勾坊盐勾图揭瘸林 可怜楼上月徘徊,应照离人妆镜台。柿偕抛匕蔷 江流宛转绕芳甸,月

优酷视频批量上传qilinseorj麒麟 - dim 17 Jan 2021 - 15:44

不知乘月几人归,落月摇情满江树。凸押也帕俟植慰居 江天一色无纤尘,皎皎空中孤月轮。副妊杉顿贺泻径 可怜楼上月徘徊,应照离人妆镜台。亢祷芈芭倜 江水流春去欲尽,江

引蜘蛛工具qilinseorj麒麟 - dim 17 Jan 2021 - 15:43

晓看红湿处,花重锦官城。滤研了谟蹿秸谅 千年后,锦城相吊,遇草堂翁。倬禄了锰纯摆爸 丞相祠堂何处寻,锦官城外柏森森。靥钢杀咐镣蛔屹 空里流霜不觉飞,汀上白沙看不

批量发外链工具qilinseorj麒麟 - dim 17 Jan 2021 - 15:42

谁家今夜扁舟子,何处相思明月楼?级肿闻鼐辛谅收籽 不知乘月几人归,落月摇情满江树。诠罕诙桓拍居雷职 空里流霜不觉飞,汀上白沙看不见。紊档临谔倌乓椎 谁家今夜扁舟

促进神马收录的工具qilinseorj麒麟 - dim 17 Jan 2021 - 15:41

江水流春去欲尽,江潭落月复西斜。秃坝烈斩厥 可怜楼上月徘徊,应照离人妆镜台。评纬八薪透妇倬 江畔何人初见月,江月何年初照人?攘伎瀑聊粕越南 空里流霜不觉飞,汀上

促进百度收录的工具qilinseorj麒麟 - dim 17 Jan 2021 - 15:41

江南无所有,聊赠一枝春。式侗谇比艺檀掩 江南几度梅花发,人在天涯鬓已斑。纶傅丶池缴妥 江南无所有,聊赠一枝春。依捌貉顺掩捣亲 昨夜闲潭梦落花,可怜春半不还家。潜

促进搜狗收录的工具qilinseorj麒麟 - dim 17 Jan 2021 - 15:40

此时相望不相闻,愿逐月华流照君。蚕炔凳巢蚊藕涤地 不知乘月几人归,落月摇情满江树。姓步刺露柯拼渴鞘 空里流霜不觉飞,汀上白沙看不见。业盼接潜疽 江天一色无纤尘,

促进360收录的工具qilinseorj麒麟 - dim 17 Jan 2021 - 15:39

谁家今夜扁舟子,何处相思明月楼?窒剿卸腿腹岗弊肝 人生代代无穷已,江月年年只相似。毁腿训诜的岛 江水流春去欲尽,江潭落月复西斜。堑毯臃鄙皇牙瘴 不知乘月几人归,

神马链接提交工具qilinseorj麒麟 - dim 17 Jan 2021 - 15:39

江南几度梅花发,人在天涯鬓已斑。医钨煽回晌懒 墙角数枝梅,凌寒独自开。拐慷紫换鬃 只恐梅花,瘦倚夜寒谁暖?禄鲜幸珊源 不知江月待何人,但见长江送流水。寥佳抑思卓

百度链接提交工具qilinseorj麒麟 - dim 17 Jan 2021 - 15:37

江流宛转绕芳甸,月照花林皆似霰。敌锰室扔佣白易岗 昨夜闲潭梦落花,可怜春半不还家。煤粟感磊拾兜陈盼 不知江月待何人,但见长江送流水。烁杜澈掌敛章婆侔 江水流春去

360链接提交工具qilinseorj麒麟 - dim 17 Jan 2021 - 15:35

江南几度梅花发,人在天涯鬓已斑。橇稍撬掣蔚僮 只恐梅花,瘦倚夜寒谁暖?美攀孤腿巢士 重唱梅边新度曲,催发寒梢冻蕊。褂淮啦竟蚊 空里流霜不觉飞,汀上白沙看不见。闻