• NoStepOnPython
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 years ago

    Good TL;DR.

    I’m slightly confused why the community is seeing this as controversial though. Isn’t the whole idea that OSM would take over as a dominant atlas database exactly what the project’s end goal is? It just has the side effect that tech companies start to use and contribute to their database.

    • onlooker
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 years ago

      I agree, but I will always be more than a bit apprehensive whenever Amazon, Microsoft, Apple and freaking Facebook are involved. If they make OSM more feature rich so they can compete with Google Maps more successfully: good. However, I am worried that they might pull off some sleazy moves, like for example removing Google’s buildings from OSM out of spite. I hope I’m just being paranoid.

    • ace
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 years ago

      The thing that may be viewed as problematic is that companies have an incentive to not contribute products they build on top of OSM. Basically, OSM runs the risk of falling behind because for-profit companies won’t want OSM to adopt functionality that they are trying to sell. (Hypothetically).

      • NoStepOnPython
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 years ago

        This makes sense. I feel like I read this part in the article but it must not have stuck. Thanks for explaining