I don’t think it’s necessary to create relation out of playgrounds structures. osm.wiki/Relations_are_not_categories

I don’t know how common these are in your area, but there’s also https://www.littlefreepantry.org/ So just because you see a small shelf/cabinet on a stick, doesn’t always means it’s a “library”. Maybe it’s worth double-checking it’s functionality.

Maybe suggest to that chamber of commerce to help organize local mapping efforts. The more accurate the map is, the easier it’ll be for people to find and even discover local businesses. And/Or ask them for access to their biz directly to be allowed to import into OSM.

Maybe consider looking into getting a 360’ camera attached to a tall monopod attached to your bike. Or simply a helmet mount. You could record your rides and then upload them to mappilary and/or similar services and then map things from the comfort of your chair. This way you can concentrate on riding safely and not worrying about missing anything important features.

Plus your recorded imagery could also be used for other mapping tasks beyond just little libraries, such as tagging street signs, biz, curbs, parking configurations, etc.

I’ll have “What is ask chatgpt for a 500 words essay how maps are important to cleaning machine rental business?” for 500, Alex.

Why mess around with command line parameters if you can just change it in josm’s display menu?

Why not share just the plus code on its own? That way the recipient can use their map of choice, be it a flavor of osm or goog, to see the referenced coordinates.

There was a service similar to linktree where you give it coordinates, it generates a short link and when you open it, it gives you like 10-15 different mapping services to open that location with. But its name escapes me and I just spent 15min searching and trying to remember its name.

112TB is 112000 GB 112000GB * $0.001 per GB = $112 Include the cost of API calls, data transfer and other small things and you get to the stated $120

I am open to engaging with individuals who offer substantiated facts rather than solely relying on their personal beliefs.

But this whole topic started because of your personal beliefs that Amazon is evil and you are pushing that belief on OSM by making multiple people justify their decisions.

Considering overwhelming majority of people countered your stance, wouldn’t it sensible that perhaps your point of view of this situation is incorrect or at least incomplete, and in that case shouldn’t the onus be on you to research everything rather than make people produce multi-paragraph reports purely on your whim?

Being free is different from being open. And in case you’re not aware, take a look at https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Commitment_to_Open_Communication_Channels

Then petition osmf to ban all slack, discord and telegram channels🤷🙄 The topic was posted on GitHub so the issue is moot regardless. If anybody had concerns about those issues they should’ve raised them at that time.

The very first line of #682 is a link to issue #637 where the 7th comment shows the offer of sponsorship and following replies. Then in #682 the 3rd bullet point is

✔ Get credits from AWS

What do you think that issue talks about if OSM didn’t accept that offer? 🤷‍♂️

Firstly, the Slack link you’ve shared isn’t openly accessible without an account; it can’t be classified as a public resource.

Anybody is free to create an account there. There’s no requirement that OSM must make broadcast announcements in your local free newspaper for you to see about it. OSM is a huge project and it’s unrealistic to think that you can be aware of everything that’s going on in all the corners of it.

Can you point me to where the details about the ongoing Amazon’s sponsorship were made public? I based my findings on the OWG official website. Most people would consider that a reliable primary source. Saying it was discussed “possibly elsewhere” seems a bit vague. All the information I gathered suggests that the sponsorship is still in the planning stages.

at least https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C029HV951/p1668206351595599, https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/682 and other issues linked from there.

My intent wasn’t to overlook their contributions, but rather, to express my concerns about OSM’s philosophical direction and values.

So far I haven’t seen anything about OSM operations that would affect OSM’s “philosophical direction” as the consequences of accepting that hosting sponsorship. It wasn’t done with conditions of allowing Amazon Logistics editors to submit trash data into OSM or somehow to promote Amazon’s services.

Ok, so if OSM would’ve refused AWS’s offer they’d have to spend a significant amount of money to get a new hosting solution, and it would actually cost Amazon less money! So that decision would help Amazon and hurt OSM…But you sure showed them with your values…🤷‍♂️

I want to clarify something upfront: When I first brought up this concern, there was no public knowledge about OSMF’s free AWS credits. The information available at that time suggested that we had not only budgeted for, but were also spending, a significant amount on S3.

That is incorrect. You are conflating YOU not being aware of it with “no public knowledge”. That is absolutely not the case. Migration to AWS and Amazon’s sponsorship was public knowledge and discussed in github issues, slack, discord and possibly elsewhere. I was aware when it was happening and participated in some of the conversations about it. I’m just a regular user, not associated with OSMF or any other group. 🤷‍♂️ Just because YOU were not aware of it happening doesn’t mean it was done in secret.

In my eyes, they commodify human beings and often operate in ways I find ethically objectionable.

Yet Amazon spent and still spends probably millions of dollars on contributing to OSM. osm.wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Amazon All these people don’t work for free. Even if it’s minimum-wage, that’s still A LOT of people hired by Amazon to add, edit and enrich data in OSM. Yes, Amazon themselves don’t do it out of charitable attitude. They profit from it too. But that’s the nature of OSM, its opensource status and its license.

-Did you hear about the free TVs? Don’t dance with the devil.

I don’t see how that’s relevant to anything that’s going on here. If you are implying that AWS somehow harvests personal data of users of their customers, you are mistaken and should read AWS’ ToS, AUP and Privacy Policy.

On the other hand you use GitHub which is owned by Microsoft. Are you fine with all the ethics of that company?

Regarding backup deduplication: …………..

There are a thousand different things that could be improved in OSM’s infrastructure. But there are only so many hours in the day and only so many people working on it. They are working on what they consider to be of the highest priority and having the most impact. Changing backup structure is probably not as critical as other things.

tens of thousands of Euros

You are still sticking to those numbers even though many times people showed that it’s incorrect premise.

There are multiple reason why AWS is being used at all. In addition to the sponsorships that covers significant portion of the cost, overall services that are offered by AWS are the most complete and extensive of any cloud service providers. So while for now OSM might be using only a couple of AWS services, being already in this ecosystem makes it easier to integrate with other services if there’s ever a need for that.

Yes, it’s possible not to use cloud providers at all and to run your own hardware. But that hardware and hosting is not free either and requires significant upfront spending in addition to the ongoing costs of hosting and maintenance.

Yet hardware hosting removes the flexibility that a cloud service provider offers by using and paying only for the resources actually used, dynamically scaling with the demand.

With fixed hardware hosting you’d need to spend upfront to accommodate for the maximum possible spikes in demand you might encounter while not using all that extra hardware.

Ultimately you should look at it this way: What is this organization’s core competency? Is it wrangling server hardware or providing a mapping service? If it’s providing a mapping service then it’s a sensible decision to outsource hardware management to somebody who makes that THEIR core competency, ie AWS.

Make sure it’s just diary and not the one with the h.

RubenKelevra, twice now you misspelled my name. This looks intentional to me and extremely rude.

I did not “dig out” a proposal. It was submitted but never accepted by the community. And it’s nowhere near what one would call “established” tag. If according to your mapping style every sidewalk has to have 2 “link” segments, their count would be ~twice as many. Yet according to taginfo there’s only 0.3% of every sidewalks have any “link” segments. That’s not established. That’s extreme fringe.

RubenKelevra, if you want to talk about “standards” then =link value is not it either. It was only a proposal which was never finished, and on which OSM community never voted or agreed to. osm.wiki/Proposal:Tag:footway%3Dlink

You are also commenting from another city, decrying a standard we are already following here.

This is exactly the attitude I talked about in the last message🙄 if everybody will be mapping however they want in their own backyard no serious business will want to spend significant amount of money relying on OSM’s data. This is why they went off and created Overture maps! Not to deal with attitudes like this!

I’m sorry but you made a public post discussing suboptimal tagging practices on public changesets and encouraging people to follow you. I will judge it and call it out.

Oh god people use footway=link on sidewalks 🤦 this is why OSM is still so inferior to Google maps when it comes to navigation. We will have no consistency and nobody will want to put effort into dealing with a million different edge cases of people mapping in their back yard.

For example this definition is absolutely ridiculous https://github.com/OpenSidewalks/OpenSidewalks-Schema#crossings-do-not-connect-to-sidewalk-centerlines

The OpenSidewalks Schema defines Crossings as existing only on the street surface and Sidewalks as describing only the sidewalk centerline. There must therefore always be space between a Sidewalk and a Crossing. A Sidewalk and Crossing should be connected by a plain Footway.

What? 🤨🤦 These are absolutely ridiculous instructions and they create unnecessary chaos and mishmash of tags for sidewalks. Sidewalks extend all the way to the curb. There’s absolutely no need to create incomplete footpaths purely because Opensidewalks’ schema is incomplete or their routing software is incompetent. That is “tagging for renderer” and that’s wrong! Use it as inspiration to understand the need of mapping sidewalks, but not as direct guidelines on how to tag things.