Hello every body. My name is ESLAM and I am Egyptian My Home location
I must confess that in years of collaborating with more or less large projects, the worst community I have participated in is OpenStreetMap. There is no collaboration, the concept exists: this area is MY area so either you map as I say or rather you don’t map at all. So there are heterogeneous areas, some places with toponymy in dialectal form, others in Italian (I’m talking about Italy). For a moment I wanted to change all the toponymy of My 😅 area in dialect. But what’s the use? So I just make some changesets that I assume correct, if some other cartographer with a lot of degree tells me I was wrong, I revert. Simple, isn’t it? I only wish that if one criticizes me (even with rudeness) at least he would come down from the pedestal and tell me: you are wrong, these are the solutions. Instead it is not so. If I’m wrong tell me how to correct, saying it’s wrong is a non-constructive criticism. 🤔
I would like to share my experiences as a new mapper to OSM. I started mapping in August this year. I found the idea of providing open data to the community appealing. I would like to talk about my initial 2-3 months of mapping.
I have focussed on mapping the village near me called Ravenshead. A comparison image shows what it looked like from 2012. Between then and August 2020 very little changed. On the right shows the recent appearance, complete with addresses on houses. Overall I found the process to be slow but relaxing and satisfying. I would eventually like to speed up the process by looking at training a machine learning model to estimate roof locations, similar to Facebook, as a JOSM plugin, but trained on UK-style houses.
One of the things I had to wrap my head around was the lack of features on the main OSM map. Having used things like Google Maps I expected to be able to explore the OSM database through an intuitive map interface. I understand from a pragmatic point of view why the OSM map is not this way, but I feel it detracts from interest in the map. When showing a section of the map to someone not familiar with OSM I will tend to show them the layout in one website, and specific features in another. The best map I’ve found for interacting with is Map Carta which makes use of wikidata and wikipedia links to inform on objects on the map. I would like to see the main website’s map use a better user interface with the ability to select objects of interest to find out more information.
A big issue with inexperience I found was a lack of direction for rigorous process. Many times for tasks I found diverging advice. On one hand the freedom to map any way allows for fitting in different countries and cultures. On the other it makes it difficult to know how to handle tasks. One example is terrace houses (in England), the wiki article on terraces provides 3 alternative approaches to mapping a terrace. As a new mapper I feel I do not have the experience to make an informed decision on which approach to take. However, many places I want to map contain terraces. Therefor should I avoid mapping terraces, or risk incorrectly mapping them? I would like to see a streamlined approach to common tasks layed out so I and others with little experience can act without worrying that our mapping is in some way destructive or inferior to other methods.
Regarding mapping tools, aside from JOSM for editing, I have found StreetComplete to be a great tool for mapping. It finds a great balance between being intuitive and powerful. It has been great to help add purpose to my pandemic-based walks. For any new mappers I would highly recommend a recent diary post by IpswichMapper on the process for generally mapping buildings.
With regards to the community I feel as though some avenues are stale and create a sense of abandonment. The front page of the wiki was a great example of this. Until recently the last news was over 12 months ago. Some wiki article discussions have also been left alone for many years with a sense that some topics should be archived or marked as solved. This results in a sense that not many people are involved in community, and without obvious avenues for communication this can be the only impression available.
I am excited about continuing mapping. However, there is doubt in my mind on the longevity of the project brought about by a lack of addressing what I consider quite key issues (or at least lack of visibility of addressing these issues).
Well, that was an experience.
Yesterday I “ran” a 24K trail race. While I ended up walking a bunch of it, it did “finish” the race.
I came in last. If you’re interested, here’s the link to the actual run: https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/5728800211
However, I did make a few changes to the map based upon my run. Not a lot, but there were parts of the beginning of the run which were also visible on the photography that I marked. I also made a few other changes based on the run, so the map was updated.
A lot of the run was on unmapped mountain bicycle trails. They weren’t visible on the photograph, so I wasn’t comfortable putting them on the map. However, I did add the GPS trace to the database so if someone gets gung ho they can see what they can add. Enjoy.
My watch says I can’t run until Thursday morning, so I’m taking a bit of me time.
As written on the OSMF-Talk mailing list, I am proposing a resolution for the upcoming Annual General Meeting of the OSM Foundation on 12 December 2020. In order to get the proposal up for voting, I need support by at least 5 % of all members, i.e. about 80 members.
You can find the text and rationale in the OSMF-Talk archives.
If you want to support this proposal, please comment this diary entry with the openstreetmap.org account which is tied to your Foundation membership. If your membership record does not contain your username (or you are not sure), please send an email to osmf-agm20-sustainable@michreichert.de with your user name. Please use the email you use for your Foundation membership.
I will email the list of all supporters to the board after 4 November 2020 (UTC).
Supporting the proposal in this step does not mean that you will or have to vote in favour of it.
I would like to ask you to use the comment section of this diary entry only for the purpose outline above. Please use the OSMF-Talk mailing list to comment on the content of proposal instead.
This is a fright that turned to fun.
In my morning walk today I travelled along Shanowen Grove, and I took StreetComplete with me, adding building levels, addresses, building types and so on. On the last section of road I discovered one of the buildings to appear on StreetComplete as a tower.
Posting in the #osmIRL Telegram group I shared the screenshot. Dónal came to my rescue It turns out the building was specified to have 21 levels. Looking at the object history on JOSM later it turns out the levels were set by Tshedy see here. However, knowing Tshedy’s level of accuracy and the likelihood that “21” is a typo that was intended to be a “2”. This is very much in keeping with a similar “small”(but big) error in Melbourne.
StreetComplete is a great tool, especially where the basic building objects have been mapped, in a slow stroll along a street one can add serious detail, and the better the initial mapping the easier it is to see which objects require further details.
https://t.me/joinchat/A7aLPBYF6GAEF5xCcLhfKQ
В этой группе предполагается сбор данных, с личных эхолотов и карт плоттерров, для составления карт глубин и рельефа дна с них или печатных карт, предлагаю собрать информацию в одном месте. Для свободного и открытого использования и составления электронной карты, на тех же принципах открытого и свободного использования. делитесь своими данными прямо в группе, чуть позже сделаю ресурс на гитхабе. Все данные планируется вносить в проект OSM. Также планируется внести все названия речных объектов, как нынешние так и исторические.
Так же ищу данатов и спонсоров на покупку эхолота и прочего геодезического оборудования для создания карт по Тамбовской области, активно участвую и составляю карты в проеrте OSM. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Sowa1980 За репост отдельное всем спасибо!
Dear colleagues,
OpenStreetMap Foundation is holding board elections soon. You would need to be a member to run. (That deadline has long passed).
Are you thinking of running? Why and why not? Please do you homework - talk with current or past board members. Let’s talk. Feel free to post a response here or reach out directly heatherleson AT gmail DOT com.
The OSMF Board has done great work this year. It is a relief to see such teamwork from the outside. I say this because it is something that is needed to support OSM.
For a global project, we continue to have a diversity and inclusion barrier in governance. I would like to encourage women and people from other regions to run for the OSMF Board.
And when the election nominations and voting begin - please consider what a true global board could be as part of your decision-making.
Thank you for all your passion for this project.
Auf Basis von umap und osm habe ich speziell für Feuerwehren folgende Karte zur Übersicht über Baustellen erstellt. Die Karte ist nicht nur auf eine Region beschränkt, sondern kann regionenübergreifend eingesetzt/abgerufen werden.
Chodziło to za mną już długo, aż wreszcie chwilę czasu znalazłem, by dopieścić coś, co już przed miesiącami wypuściłem - ku pomocy i wsparciu mapujących na OSM - w niniejszym Dzienniku: “Checklistę obiektów użyteczności publicznej na OSM” - w niniejszej 2 wersji pod nazwą “Listy kontrolnej”. Wygląda to obecnie tak:
oraz jest jednostronicowe i bardziej zwarte, jak również uzupełnione o kilka instytucji, które mogą być przydatne dla konsumenta mapy.
Nowa wersja do pobrania stąd. Komentarze i uwagi mile widziane.
Last year I pushed a resolution to change the membership fees of OSM UK at very short notice. The OSM UK members rightly (albeit much to my frustration at the time) rejected this resolution at the OSM UK general meeting. The following year, we started discussing fees much earlier and the members subsequently accepted a resolution this time around.
This week, posts to osmf-talk indicate that the OSMF board is considering a number of resolutions for their general meeting. These resolutions are much more complicated than a simple change in membership fee as they relate to changes to the Articles of Association to help prevent “evil takeover”. You would therefore expect significantly more upfront discussion. Changes to the Articles of Association shouldn’t be taken lightly as they can have weird, unforeseen consequences so you would also expect legal advise to be sought well in advance and some sort of summary of this to be presented to the members. This should occur in advance of a final decision as to what should go onto into the general meeting notice for voting.
Now I fully support provisions that help protect the OSMF; in fact I have been proposing options to the OSMF for at least 2 years. However I doubt many of us our experts in the field (our intelligence lies mainly in other domains). Are we even sure that an AoA change is the right option? You may get much more protection from other changes such as changing the companies status from the current “Ltd” organisation to something more suited to a non-profit organisation.
Perhaps there is a middle ground involving putting a policy to the vote at an AGM, or something similar. [quote from Andy Allan]
Yes. Here is a proposed Ordinary Resolution which would require just 50% of the vote to pass:
Proposed Resolution: That the board must undertake an assessment of the options that would provide greater protection to OSMF from a hostile takeover. The assessment should include a review of provisions in the Articles of Association and also other options that are available including a change of status. The assessment should consider both the legal implications but also any consequences to the health of the OpenStreetMap community. Professional legal advise should be sought and a summary of the findings must be presented back to the members no later than 30 June 2021.
The board would be bound by this and once the members and the board are fully armed with all the relevant info we can then take the next step. This next step could come from the board or be driven by the members.
Odkąd od ponad 2 lat aktywnie mapuję różne zakątki Polski w ramach OpenStreetMap nauczyłem się kilku rzeczy, które z perspektywy czasu uważam za absolutną podstawę do poprawnego i profesjonalnego tworzenia mapy. W tym, i być może kilku następnych, wpisie, podzielę się tą wiedzą, by i inni nie musieli błąkać po omacku, i by ich praca była możliwie najbardziej owocna.
Sprawa edytora mapy: tylko i wyłącznie JOSM. Wbudowany w OSM iD jest fajny do szybkich i prostych edycji. Edytory w aplikacjach mapowych - są super do dodawania POI. Ale do poważnej pracy - tylko JOSM. Czemu? Bo umożliwia dodanie kilku warstw podkładu jednocześnie. A bez tego właśnie nie wyobrażam sobie efektywnej pracy nad mapą.
Sprawa podkładu więc: podstawą dobrego mapowania dla Polski (z racji kalibracji zdjęć i ich względnej aktualności) są zdjęcia z Geoportalu (urzędowych zdjęć dostarczanych przez Główny Urząd Geodezji i Kartografii). I na ich bazie mapuje pewnie większość z uczestników projektu. A to błąd, skutkujący niską często jakością danych otrzymanych w wyniku mapowania. Konieczne - w moim odczuciu i doświadczeniu - jest dodawanie także podkładów: 1. Krajowa Integracja Ewidencji Gruntów - działki 2. Krajowa Integracja Ewidencji Gruntów: Budynki 3. Krajowa Integracja Punktów Adresowych - impa-adresy, emuia-adresy Pompatyczność tych nazw: “krajowa” i “ewidencja” słusznie kieruje nasze intuicje, że są to także dane oficjalne, czyli urzędowe (podobnie jak Geoportal), w związku z czym możemy im - z grubsza - ufać.
I o ile - podaję przykład na wycinku miasta wojewódzkiego Suwałki - nasz początek pracy w JOSM z mapowaniem terenu wygląda tak:
Po dodaniu podkładu Geoportalu:
Ale dodając nasze 4 warstwy, w odpowiednim ich ułożeniu, by się nie zasłaniały nawzajem, mamy taki oto podkład dla naszej pracy:
gdzie mamy teraz zdjęcie lotnicze, a nad nim obrysy budynków, numerację adresową, granice działek - pożyteczne przy poprawnym odrysowywaniu ogrodzeń.
Czy obecna ilość danych na podkładzie nie powoduje, że czujemy się pewniejsi, bo “mądrzejsi” o zasób źródeł?
Słówko o tym, “jak to zrobić”: Otóż podkład w JOSM jest do wybierania (wielokrotnego - czyli klikamy podkłady po kolei przez co dodają się w kolejności…) poprzez programowe menu Podkłady. By uzyskać efekt jak na drugiej grafice trzeba zainteresować się wpisem podkładowym: “Krajowa Integracja Ewidencji Gruntów”, “Geoportal 2: Ortofotomapa (zdjęcia lotnicze) WMTS” oraz “Krajowa Integracja Punktów Adresowych” (a w przypadku jej braku trzeba w ustawieniach podkładów dodać adres URL dla tego podkładu: wms_endpoint:http://wms.epodgik.pl/cgi-bin/KrajowaIntegracjaPunktowAdresowych
I to tyle w tym temacie :-) Miłego owocnego kartografowania!!!
A while ago they put in a WaWa near Daytona Beach City Hall. I just added it. I also moved the Daytona Beach Greyhound Station marker so that it’s obvious that it’s behind the building.
Hello folks! This is my first diary entry. I’ll be discussing some key issues on OpenStreetMap, as well as some updates I have done.
I did some edits in the Ohio area, including adding some geometry detail and adding some details to the swimming pools located in the area. I also worked on fixing up the H1 Freeway, something I have been working on for a while now.
If you look at the H1 Freeway (from the beginning of the Lunililo Freeway), you’ll notice that some of the freeway on/off-ramps are well detailed. This is part of a project of mine to create uniformity and clean up the Hawaii Freeways. I use local knowledge, some YouTube videos and street level imagery to help with adding this information.
While I was mapping, I noticed something I see too often: a great, detailed POI created by a user who only closed 3 changesets. I reached out to him with a question about if he will map some more businesses, but I don’t expect a response soon.
Well, today’s mapping was pretty much the usual. I’m planning on hopefully working on the freeway tomorrow and possibly more clean up in but that’s pretty much it.
Havi rendszeres online találkozóinkon összejönnek a gyakorlott és kezdő OpenStreetMap szerkesztők, felhasználók és érdeklődők. Beszélgetünk térképszerkesztési kérdésekről, az OSM helyzetéről, tervekről. Gyakorlottabb szerkesztőink pedig rövid előadásokkal készülnek az számukra éppen aktuális témákból. Szeretettel várunk minden érdeklődőt!
További információk a wiki oldalon olvashatók: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hungary/Tal%C3%A1lkoz%C3%B3k/2%302%30-10-26-havi-osm
Kérdéseket Matrixon és a levlistán is fogadunk.
Terjesszétek a hírét: ne feledjétek a szabályt - mindenki hozzon még két embert!
Today I had to get new glasses at the local mall. I quickly noticed one or two items that I could fix immediately, but there have been changes to the stores. So I’m going to come back next rainy day and do a better job of updating the information here.
English below
Le dernier billet de blog [1] de Christoph Hormann (Imagico) sur l’OSMF a été mentionné dans le #531 de WeeklyOSM, mais n’a pas fait l’objet d’un fil de discussion sur la liste talk de l’OSMF. A deux mois de la fin de l’année et d’une nouvelle élection au board, il mérite pourtant d’être partagé et commenté.
Personnellement, je partage les mêmes inquiétude et déception, ainsi qu’un certain découragement. J’avais globalement la même perception, avec des nuances, quant aux différentes candidatures déposées lors de la dernière élection. Comment pouvait-on imaginer qu’un changement de 3 personnes sur un total de 7 produirait des mutations aussi radicales dans la conduite du board, ce que les manifestos des uns et des autres ne laissaient alors pas percevoir ?
L’instauration de réunions non publiques, qui n’avaient plus cours depuis 2016, est en effet regrettable et inattendue, alors que le seul candidat à vouloir leur retour au moment des élections n’a pas été élu, et qu’au même moment sortaient du board deux personnes qui auraient pu vouloir y mettre fin. Le respect de la transparence des échanges et décisions est un point qui ne devrait pas être galvaudé pour des avantages supposés en termes d’efficacité ou de facilité de parole. En dehors de la perte de capacité de contrôle des membres sur les décisions prises par le bureau de la Fondation, c’est également le meilleur moyen de démotiver celles et ceux qui désirent suivre, commenter et accompagner activement ses travaux. J’ajouterai pour ma part la tendance nouvelle à créer des comités restreints dont les membres sont choisis directement par le board (ou dont la sélection passe par les fourches caudines de l’un des membres du board), ce qui diffère notablement de la pratique des Groupes de travail ouverts à tout membre voulant s’y investir. Pourtant, même dans ce cadre de ces comités désignés, le board peut passer outre les décisions, pour preuve la sélection du comité restreint des Microgrants, dont certains candidats recalés ont finalement été retenus, ce qui n’a pas manqué d’étonner.
On touche ici à une autre tendance forte et inquiétante du board 2020 de l’OSMF : celle de s’affranchir des cadres construits par le passé, l’absence de volonté de mettre en place de nouveaux cadres argumentés et bien définis et le refus de réfléchir aux implications d’actions potentiellement lourdes de conséquences en termes de gouvernance ou de gestion financière. En l’absence d’historique visible dans le wiki (ce qui serait évidemment intéressant là encore en termes de transparence), difficile de dire quand exactement a été ajoutée la phrase : « Is responsible for allocating $$ to diverse worthwhile software projects with grants and microgrants. » dans la page Mission statement [2]. En dehors du fait qu’il soit assez curieux de faire mention de dollars états-uniens alors que, sauf erreur, les fonds de l’OSMF ne sont pas détenus dans cette monnaie mais en EUR et GBP, cette phrase apparaît particulièrement vague quant au périmètre de ces financements et laisse place à toutes les interprétations, alors que de nombreux échanges entre des membres de l’OSMF ont eu lieu sur la définition de différents périmètres, notamment autour d’un autre billet de blog publié également par Imagico [3]. Sauf erreur, un seul membre du board y intervient, mais l’échange est particulièrement éclairant : Rory McCann résume l’approche du board en matière de décision de financement à ce qui « sounds good » et il ne parvient pas à comprendre les attentes résumées par Imagico dans la phrase « document and publish the key parts of the decision making process, in particular risk analysis that has been made on social implications and economic risk ». Dans un fil de discussion de la liste talk [4], Rory fait un parallèle entre ce mode de décision et le tagging OSM, comme s’il était possible de comparer des choix sémantiques flexibles, réversibles et sans conséquence aucune sur le futur du projet OSM avec des décisions, notamment financières, qui elles ne le sont pas.
Cette propension à (beaucoup) financer représente une autre tendance du board 2020 de l’OSM. C’est la plus spectaculaire et visible de l’extérieur. Un seul de ces financements relève du périmètre d’action de la Fondation : la fonction de Senior site reliability engineer pour assurer la continuité de service des serveurs OSM, qui fait partie des Mission statements de la Fondation, est difficilement contournable si les volontaires qui l’assuraient jusqu’ici ne souhaitent ou ne peuvent plus la maintenir et va représenter un poste de dépenses important dans le budget de la Fondation. Par contre, le choix de financer en plus quatre logiciels de l’écosystème OSM fait désormais de facto de l’OSMF un acteur économique avec tous les enjeux et intérêts nouveaux que cela accompagne. Et en dehors de ces aspects cruciaux de gouvernance, ce choix explose d’autant plus le montant cumulé des dépenses de la Fondation au cours des 12 derniers mois. Celui-ci atteint environ 300 000 euros, dont 130 000 dévolus à une simple maintenance de iD, contre 75 000 pour l’année 2019, sur total de fonds disponibles qui s’élèverait à 613 000 euros [5]. La moitié des fonds disponibles aura donc été dépensée en une seule année, pratiquement l’équivalent de la donation du Pineapple Fund passé dans des projets logiciels en dehors du périmètre de l’OSMF. La pérennité de cette approche reposerait sur une stratégie de levée de fonds encore à définir totalement, alors que le contexte économique à venir est particulièrement morose, qu’il n’y a jamais eu jusqu’à présent qu’une seule donation à plus de 100 000 EUR et qu’il est possible que les SotM physiques, source de revenus pour la Fondation, ne puissent être organisés au cours des prochaines années.
En outre, cette action centrée uniquement vers des besoins techniques laisse totalement de côté d’autres enjeux pourtant majeurs, comme celui au cœur des deux dernières élections du board depuis l’épisode GlobalLogic : celui de sa fragilité à des tentatives de prise de contrôle. Deux ans après, l’OSMF ne semble pas être mieux armée pour contrer ce danger, et plutôt moins, ayant moins de trésorerie et des besoins financiers plus importants pour maintenir ses serveurs. Des ébauches de solutions avaient pourtant été proposées, mais n’ont pas été reprises et mises en œuvre, comme celle consistant à accroire le nombre de sièges au board pour réduire les risques d’un changement radical à la suite d’un simple renouvellement. Ce qui s’est précisément produit cette année… La recherche d’autres moyens pour renforcer la structure de l’OSMF pourrait par exemple nécessiter un appui juridique qui serait vraisemblablement coûteux :inventer ou consolider une forme juridique qui garantisse l’indépendance de la Fondation, le maintien de ses objectifs et de certaines de ses valeurs (par exemple une licence libre intégrant nécessairement attribution et Share Alike), à la manière dont les médias The Guardian ou Mediapart ont pu trouver des formes originales pour pérenniser leur indépendance.
[1] http://blog.imagico.de/osmf-general-meeting-and-board-elections/
[2] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/imagico/diary/393808
[4] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-August/007018.html
[5] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-August/007003.html
(automatic translation by www.DeepL.com/Translator)
The latest blog post [1] by Christoph Hormann (Imagico) on the OSMF was mentioned in #531 of WeeklyOSM, but was not the subject of a thread on the OSMF’s talk list. With two months to go before the end of the year and a new election to the board, it deserves to be shared and commented on.
Personally, I share the same concerns and disappointment, as well as a certain discouragement. I generally had the same perception, with nuances, regarding the different candidacies submitted during the last election. How could one imagine that a change of 3 people out of a total of 7 would produce such radical mutations in the conduct of the board, something that the demonstrations of some and others did not allow us to perceive at the time?
The introduction of non-public meetings, which had not been held since 2016, is indeed regrettable and unexpected, when the only candidate who wanted them to return at the time of the elections was not elected, and at the same time two people who might have wanted to put an end to it were leaving the board. Respect for the transparency of exchanges and decisions is a point that should not be overlooked for supposed advantages in terms of efficiency or ease of speech. Apart from the loss of the members’ ability to control the decisions made by the Foundation’s board, it is also the best way to demotivate those who wish to follow, comment on and actively accompany its work. For my part, I would add the new tendency to create restricted committees whose members are chosen directly by the board (or whose selection is made through the caudal forks of one of the board members), which differs significantly from the practice of working groups open to any member who wants to get involved. However, even within the framework of these designated committees, the board can overrule the decisions, as evidenced by the selection of the Microgrants select committee, some of whose unsuccessful candidates were finally selected, which was not without surprise.
We are touching here on another strong and worrying trend of the OSMF 2020 board: that of freeing itself from the frameworks built in the past, the absence of willingness to put in place new, well-argued and well-defined frameworks, and the refusal to consider the implications of potentially far-reaching actions in terms of governance or financial management. In the absence of a visible history in the wiki (which would obviously be interesting here again in terms of transparency), it is difficult to say when exactly the sentence: “Is responsible for allocating $$ to diverse worthwhile software projects with grants and microgrants was added. ”in the Mission statement page [2]. Apart from the fact that it is rather curious to mention US dollars when, unless I am mistaken, OSMF funds are not held in this currency but in EUR and GBP, this sentence seems particularly vague as to the scope of these funds and leaves room for all interpretations, while many exchanges between OSMF members have taken place on the definition of different perimeters, notably around another blog post also published by Imagico [3]. Unless I’m mistaken, only one member of the board is involved, but the exchange is particularly enlightening: Rory McCann summarizes the board’s approach to funding decisions in terms of what “sounds good” and he fails to understand the expectations summarized by Imagico in the sentence “document and publish the key parts of the decision making process, in particular risk analysis that has been made on social implications and economic risk”. In a thread on the talk list [4], Rory draws a parallel between this mode of decision making and OSM tagging, as if it were possible to compare flexible, reversible semantic choices without any consequence on the future of the OSM project with decisions, especially financial decisions, which are not.
This propensity to (much) finance represents another trend of the OSM 2020 board. It is the most spectacular and visible from the outside. Only one of these financings falls within the Foundation’s scope of action: the function of Senior site reliability engineer to ensure the continuity of service of the OSM servers, which is part of the Foundation’s Mission statements, is difficult to circumvent if the volunteers who have been providing it until now do not wish to or can no longer maintain it and will represent an important item of expenditure in the Foundation’s budget.
On the other hand, the decision to finance an additional four software products from the OSM ecosystem now makes the OSMF a de facto economic player with all the new stakes and interests that this brings with it. And apart from these crucial aspects of governance, this choice further explodes the cumulative amount of the Foundation’s expenditures over the past 12 months. 300,000, of which 130,000 were devoted to simple iD maintenance, compared to 75,000 for the year 2019, out of the total available funds of 613,000 euros [5]. Half of the available funds will thus have been spent in a single year, practically the equivalent of the Pineapple Fund donation spent on software projects outside the OSMF’s perimeter. The sustainability of this approach would be based on a fundraising strategy that has yet to be fully defined, given that the future economic context is particularly gloomy, that there has so far only ever been a single donation in excess of 100,000 Euros, and that the physical SotMs, a source of income for the Foundation, may not be organized in the coming years.
Moreover, this action focused solely on technical needs completely ignores other major issues, such as the one at the heart of the last two board elections since the GlobalLogic episode: the fragility of the board’s ability to take control. Two years later, the OSMF does not seem to be better armed to counter this danger, and rather less so, having less cash and greater financial needs to maintain its servers. Draft solutions had been proposed, but were not taken up and implemented, such as increasing the number of seats on the board to reduce the risk of a radical change following a simple renewal. The search for other means to strengthen the structure of the OSMF could, for example, require legal support, which would probably be costly: inventing or consolidating a legal form that guarantees the independence of the Foundation, the maintenance of its objectives and certain of its values (for example, a free license that necessarily includes attribution and Share Alike), in the same way that the media The Guardian or Mediapart have been able to find original forms to perpetuate their independence.
Anzeige der Geländehöhe unter dem Mauscursor auf sehr einfache, clientbasierte Weise. demLayer in Aktion
Well, that was fun. Beach Street in Daytona Beach, FL, USA, between Orange Avenue and Magnolia Avenue was fully laid out in the map. Lot’s of stores, etc. Unfortunately, as with many very busy commercial areas, there’s a high turnover in the stores in a given area.
Just in this one block area, I ended up deleting about half of the existing businesses and adding even more. Well, at least it’s up to date. For the time being.
外國媒體彭博社報導一項毋是新消息的代誌，彼咧是佇中國內蒙古的朱日和基地內底有親像台灣總統府衙的建築。毋過幾若冬進前已經予軍武迷注意點，甚至媒體已經報導過。
Guā-kok muî-thé Bloomberg pò-tō tsi̍t-hāng m̄ sī sin-siau-sit ê tāi-tsì, he teh sī tī Tiong-kok Lāi-Mongolia ê Ti-ji̍t-hô-ki-tuē lāi-tué ū tshin-tshiūnn Tâi-uân-Tsóng-thóng-hú-gê ê kiàn-tio̍k. M̄-koh kuí-nā-tang tsìn-tsîng í-king hōo kun-bú-bê tsù-ì-tio̍h, sīm-tsì muî-thé í-king pò-tō kè. 中國彼爿不只是佇軍事基地內底建親像台灣總統府衙等等的重要軍政地點的建築，猶閣有佇內蒙古的沙漠複製映刻台灣中部重要的軍事機場的清泉崗機場。
Tiong-kok hit pîng put-tsí-sī tī kun-sū-ki-tuē lāi-tué kiàn tshin-tshiūnn Tâi-uân ê Tsóng-thóng-hú-gê tíng-tíng ê tiōng-iàu kun-tsìng tuē-tiám ê kiàn-tio̍k, iáu-koh ū tī lāi-Mongolia ê sua-bo̍k ho̍k-tsè ìn-khik Tâi-uân-tiong-pōo tiōng-iàu ê kun-ki-tiûnn ê Tshing-tsuân-kong-ki-tiûnn.
中國長期對台灣有領土野心，因為台灣島控制中國進出西太平洋的重要孔道。另外中國對台灣自我治理的政府嘛一直看無順眼，一直想方設法愛消滅台灣以國家的型式存在的事實，聲稱愛「統一」台灣變成中國一個省予中國管理。中國仿做台灣tiōng-iàu軍事基地，供解放軍訓練模擬進攻臺灣軍政地點，並毋是新消息。
Tiong-kok tn̂g-kî tuì Tâi-uân ū líng-thóo-iá-sim, in-uī Tâi-uân-tóo khòng-tsè Tiong-kok tsìn-tshut Se-Thài-pîng-iûnn ê Tiōng-iàu kháng-tō. Līng-guā Tiong-kiōng tuì Tâi-uân tsū-guá tī-lí ê tsìng-hú mā it-ti̍t khuànn bô sūn-gán, it-ti̍t siong-hong-siat-huat ài siau-bia̍t Tâi-uân í kok-ka ê hîng-sik tsûn-tsāi ê sū-si̍t, sing-tshing ài “thóng-it” Tâi-uân piàn-sîng Tiong-kok tsit4-ê síng hōo Tiong-kok kuán-lí. Tiong-kok hóng-tsō Tâi-uân tiōng-iàu kun-sū-ki-tuē, kiong kái-hòng-kun hùn-liān bôo-gí tsìn-kong Tâi-uân kun-tsìng tuē-tiám, pīng m̄ sī sin-siau-sit.
你會當佇開放街圖頂懸共台北的總統府衙和朱日和基地內底仿製的建築互相比較，看有啥物無仝佮相仝的所在。已經有圖客畫仿製的模擬訓練的建築啦。
Lí ē-tàng tī khai-hòng-kue-tôo tíng-kuân kā Tâi-pak ê Tsóng-thóng-hú-gê hām Tsu-ji̍t-hô-ki-tuē lāi-tué hóng-tsè ê kiàn-tio̍k hōo-siong pí-khah, khuànn ū siánn-mih bô kâng kah sio-kâng ê sóo-tsāi. Í-king ū tôo-kheh uē hóng-tsè ê bôo-gí hùn-liān ê kiàn-tio̍k–lah.
