OTRS? On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:30 PM, SteveC <st...@asklater.com> wrote:
> Well let me take that back a bit - actually even doing some very simple > cleanup of the interface and having a feedback mechanism *at all* would be a > good first step, as people jumped on my recent OGD post in the comments: > > http://opengeodata.org/the-importance-of-timing-to-feedback > > > > On Jun 17, 2010, at 7:27 PM, SteveC wrote: > > I think you're concentrating on tiles, but that's not really the > bottleneck I would jump on first. > > > > The conversation goes like this: > > > > "steve we have 300 million people a day look at our site and we would > like to send their edits and feedback to OSM" > > > > Really it's the API we're talking about. Tiles are just a CDN problem. > > > > > > On Jun 17, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > >> Steve, > >> > >>> They would like to link to us directly but don't think a) we can > >>> handle the load and b) don't think it would be a good user experience > >>> to dump people on to osm.org, what with the site design. > >> > >> To paraphrase (not specifically Wolfram, but the unnamed other megacorps > you're chatting with): > >> > >> 1. they'd like to link to us directly but our infrastrucutre is too > weak; > >> > >> 2. they would not want to give us a shitload of money to improve our > infrastructure, but could imagine hosting something; > >> > >> 3. there is fear that the community would view this negatively. > >> > >> To which I say, I don't think the community has anything against someone > doing a glorified maps.cloudmade.com; if they have really fast servers and > maybe even a CDN, can do lots of styles and make the tiles and services > available under a free-for-all policy. That would be great, and would - if > given sufficient long-term promise by whoever it is - allow us to reduce our > tile serving to an experimental capacity, freeing up resources for the core > database which obviously we must keep operating ourselves. > >> > >> But there is a logical problem here and that has nothing to do with us > at all. You say that many would like to link to OSM directly if only OSM had > sufficient resources. Now assume that some big guy with many enemies, say > Google, or Microsoft, were to offer super-fat tile serving for OSM as I > outlined above. We would then scale back our own tile ops to a minimum, and > their server would be the main OSM tile server, and whenever you go to > www.osm.org your browser says "connecting to osmtile.google.com" or some > such. > >> > >> I think that the community would be less of a problem - I don't think > many would care if our tiles came from MS or Google or so as long as they > were unrestricted and the data remained free. But all those other big guys, > of whom you say that they would like to link to us - would *they* want to > send their users to get tiles from Google, MS or someone else? Or would the > "we'd like to link to you but your infrastructure cannot take the load and > anyway your front page is ugly" then be replaced with "we'd like to link to > you but you must understand that the 'sponsored by XYZ' on the shiny front > page is a problem"? > >> > >> Of course things would be even worse if the big sponsor wanted to put > the tiles or service under a non-open license (e.g. a license with a > "noncommercial" component"). That, I think, would reduce overall usefulness > rather than improving it. Any funded tile serving would have to be more open > than what we can currently offer, not less. > >> > >> Bye > >> Frederik > >> > >> -- > >> Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" > E008°23'33" > >> > > > > Steve > > > > stevecoast.com > > > > Steve > > stevecoast.com > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
