There is nothing stopping the board from creating an additional agreement outside of the NDAs that would define the space in which volunteers can act. But in any case if the board is concerned that it can’t, legally squeaky clean, delegate responsibility to non-board members, then it doesn’t just have an issue with volunteers and the working groups, it is going to have one with employees too. So best completely revamp this in the AoAs instead of doing something that in practical terms is just going to cause issues.

_ But if they’d create a working group or a different informal structure for that, they’d run into the problem that such entity could not make any legally binding statements towards personnel (like instructing them what to do, handle requests for leave, dealing with payment matters, approval of deliverables/invoices from independent contractors etc.)_

What do you think the working groups have been doing the last decade+? Naturally within an agreed remit and budget, and with the purse strings held by the treasurer (in a larger organisation that would typically be delegated to staff too), but de facto this has been done by the WG, who do you think signed off on all the trademark related bills, or who orders and checks hardware? In the real world and not lala land, boards of companies do not actually do all the work themselves.

The solution is to simply add addresses (with postcodes), naturally only if Malaysia uses something that fits in to the Schema we currently use addr=* If it doesn’t that is something that would have to be discussed.

And this is the app https://www.refill.bz.it/?mz=9&mc=46.640008243515915,11.351623535156252 looks harmless, probably just buggy.

@SomeoneElse see for example @danielbir with > 6000 empty changesets.

@SomeoneElse I was actually prompted to have a quick look at the empty changeset numbers, and they have doubled from the usual ~5’000/month since August and the “Refill Südtirol” app is the major culprit (for the increase, the rest are the usual suspects JOSM, maps.me and id).

Generating a list of user ids as I write.

There are regularly updated statistics on editor usage avaliable here osm.wiki/Editor_usage_stats

It seems as if you are actually using changeset counts and not edits as you claim, this is not only extremely mislieading and distorts actual use of the various apps, changeset counts are simply not a good metric for anything.

@CjMalone this has been tried numerous times and the result has been the non-commital statements we’ve receive to date (not an outright no, but not an outright and clear, official “yes” either).

Please note that when you are using this Strava layer that there is no actual permission to use the data and you are running the risk of having your edits removed if there is trouble down the road (and that is why you need to use hackish workarounds to access the layer in the 1st place).

You don’t mention how the models you intend to employ were trained. Regardless of the source of the training data, you need to consider that there may be residual intellectual property from the source of the training data in the output of the models.

This looks like a known artefact of the rendering on OpenCycleMap, that is due to the ways being merged and ending up pointing in the wrong direction. The creator of OCM is working on the issue, but this make some time to fix.

@tyr_asd “if” is the key, it just isn’t clear right now if it includes the version or not. Regardless of ToU compliance or none, version specific blocking currently can only happen if the user agent includes the version (and that it is running on iOS I suppose), as there is no API internal way of blocking apps based on a version string or similar.

@stephan75 If the version isn’t reported in the user agent on upload there is no easy way to do that.

@Wynndale as noted, you can still use ELI if you so wish.

Technically the contents/attributes of the JOSM imagery list are very similar with ELI so there is no functionality being lost for 3rd party apps that use one or the other.

The fact that I’m at least to dumb to understand just how the JOSM devs intended imagery selection work in a reasonable fashion (and I’ve been using it over a decade), is just an implementation issue and doesn’t have anything to do with the actual contents.

Both systems are struggling with the number of entries, and I suspect over time that we will have to move to an API based system for retrieval.

I don’t really think that a singular quirk, which in the end is due to a disagreement between Andy and Matt on architectural issues, is anything else than an exception to the rule.

I think there is no disagreement that having a selection of tools would be nice, but is it realistic? The economic realities would say no. Lets just restrict ourselves to the 2nd most popular editor, JOSM, for the purpose of the discussion (because other examples are even more extreme),

A rough estimate is that JOSM (development, maintenance and infrastructure) costs 20 Euro / head / year, iD on the other hand 2 Euro. With increasing market share of iD and stagnating, if not going down, number of JOSM users this will get worse over time.

Now currently JOSM users outstrip the iD users in actual edits made, but the trends there are clear too, and that will accelerate with more feature parity in iD (actual feature parity is not required, there are likely only a handful of missing features in iD that are used by more than a handful of JOSM users).

In any case so while right now a case could be made for the OSMF covering the costs for JOSM. as it intends to do with iD in the medium term (1-2 years), the case will be non-existent.

A different way to look at it from an end user pov: 2 Euro a year is something you could conceivably collect from a large number of iD users, 20 Euros not.

To be clear the tl;dr version is I was being fairly arbitrary with my list, there are obviously a lot of things that could or could not be included in to “core infrastructure”.

What is true is that the initiative doesn’t seem to be that well thought out, for example just to touch on one aspect that affects me: the OSMF, FB and Apple are competing with me for mobile editor users. Is there a scenario in which continued development still makes sense? And even JOSMs niche is becoming smaller and user number are stagnating or even going down.

Well the difference is that the osm-carto layer is just one of 4 (all OSM based), with a substantial number of other ones available and technically replacing it is a one minute change (just as with the routing engines, which we don’t operate ourselves either). AFAIK there is no alternative to the Nominatim service that is only using suitably licensed data (not to mention that there was a board decision way back to operate such a service ourselves). osm2pgsql sits a bit in the middle as it is something used by a great number of sites and is required for Nominatim.

Simply because there is no hope that they could be revived? I was actually on the brink of leaving all tile server/map related stuff away as, it is overall unclear how “core” they are.

I think it is a bit confusing to conflate this with the microgrants.

One of the rules communicated around the microgrants was that it wasn’t intended as a vehicle to finance core OSM infrastructure, and there is no doubt that iD, osm2pgsql and Nominatim belong in that category (actually this is about the only rule that was actually upheld in the microgrant project selection so we should be really grateful for that).

Once that is out of the way the question is simply if the OSMF wants to keep the software projects it heavily relies on heathy (the list is quite short in any case add the rails-port, mod-tile/renderd and I suppose osmium and that’s about it), not that there isn’t more software in OSM space that has high use, just that it wouldn’t fall in to the category of core infrastructure.

As to financing the conversion of P2, yes that should have been a no-brainer for a microgrant, and it is unclear why it wasn’t selected. Probably it simply fell through the cracks between playing HOT 2.0 and trying to make everybody happy. I would see financing this more as correcting an obvious mistake than anything to do with the more strategic questions of financing core infrastructure.