On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote: > It still amazes me how many app developers have made the functioning of > their paid-for app entirely dependent on what someone (OSM) decides to do > with a third-party server.
Clearly some developers think about it at all. But some developers may reason that OSMF is getting something from it: The most obvious choice would be exposure that OSMF then tries to translate into productive edits and perhaps even donations. After all, Google served tiles for free when serving map tiles were much more expensive (NT / TA license and hosting costs when they launched 6 years ago). Now OSMF can use this type of analysis to redesign the Tile Usage Policy. All you are really aiming for is (a) preventing increases in tile requests faster than procurement of servers and (b) maintaining a good tile request to edit ratio. (a) is not a problem because of the negative feedback loop. And (b) can be achieved with by simply placing a limit on the number of tiles served to a single IP address in a single day. If you can convince a user to start editing after serving him 20MB of tiles, you're most like not going to convince him with 100 MB of tiles. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
