A virtual discussion on the subject “The Sustainability of OpenStreetMap Communities” held on July 4th, 2023 was the sixth of the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT) Community Working Group Peer-to-Peer Learning Series aimed at supporting the new OSM chapters in Saint Lucia and Dominica. What follows are some key takeaways from that discussion.

The session got underway with an icebreaker of sorts where participants were asked to give one word that could be used to describe a sustainable OpenStreetMap community. The question garnered 19 responses, including: inclusive, resilient, accessible, accountable, self-sustained, and active.

What are the potential challenges or barriers to sustaining an OSM community?

The question received about 21 responses. Lack of resources was a commonly repeated theme, with the key resource being financial.

Other challenges highlighted include a lack of motivation and the inability to replace leaving members. It was noted that language differences can also be a factor.

Additionally, there were personal testimonies of challenges, for example, Covid 19 stopped in-person meetings for OSM Kenya forcing online meetings, which hindered some of the members.

What funding models or strategies can be implemented to ensure the long-term sustainability of an OSM Community?

This question was particularly relevant coming off of identifying the lack of financial resources as a prevalent challenge to the sustainability of an OSM community. Again 21 responses were generated.

Membership fees were raised as an avenue for fundraising, but some felt that it might be counterintuitive as it may scare away would-be members.

A key source of possible funding is grants from the OSM foundation, although it was more typical for newly forming communities.

The groups’ earning potential was also discussed, for instance maybe the community should be allowed to take up a funded project or use the varied skill sets within the group for earning finances.

Members who have benefited from the OSM eco-system and have landed jobs such as consultancies, can sow back into their local community group.

One of the key contributions was that OSM community-group source funding need not be an invention and should look like the proven methods that other civil society organizations already employ. Closely linked to that point were discussions on how to write proposals and the skills to talk to donors and form partnerships with local businesses.  

How can partnerships and collaborations with other communities or organizations contribute to the sustainability of an OpenStreetMap community?

One benefit accrued to partnering is that it helps to pool resources such as speakers, knowledge, and diversities, which all add to providing a wider perspective. This sort of skill sharing was regarded as a key component for the growth of a community.

It was said that partnering is especially beneficial to smaller communities, as having that support available to them from another community, will help with meeting objectives and goals that may have been too tall a task for either their membership size or skillset.

What are some success stories or examples of sustainable OpenStreetMap Communities?

OSM Uganda proudly flew its flag as a successful OSM community.

But in general, the success stories revolve around impacting others from outside the community with what goes on in the community.

For instance, offering help to national organizations to help map their municipalities and to transfer GIS skills to their staff.

Additionally, having a strong-headed leadership structure was also put forth as either a contributor to or a mark of, successful and sustained OSM communities.