Hacker News Reader

Comment by alex_duf | Hacker News Reader

But they are contributing back, that's the point of the article right?

So much so the article is more about who controls the organisation.

I personally see this mostly as a good thing. More data, better data, and everyone gets value out of it: users and corporations. Surely it's a sign this project is doing things right.

However I think it's right that the article points at the power structure of this organisation, I think now more than ever it's important it remains independent.

View on HN

> But they are contributing back

Sometimes they are not contributing. There have been complaints about contractors employed by the big firms adding non-existent roads, tagging roads wrongly, etc. The concern is that because the big firms are so big and now have power over OSM governance, they can simply ignore all those community members who are noticing their persistent mistakes and asking them to stop.

This seems to imply that the corporate members are inserting these mistakes on purpose. I am not convinced this is the case, as I do not see how they could benefit from creating bad maps.

It is not that they are inserting the mistakes on purpose, but rather the contractors actually doing the edits are not responding to changeset comments saying "Hey, you've been persistently making a tagging error with regard to X, could you please stop?" The big corporate members are so big and powerful, they don't care if their contractors are sometimes violating OSM etiquette and failing to work together with other members of the community.

Can bad mappers be banned? Or is the net value positive even if theyale some errors?

If you ban the account of one employee of a contractor, that employee can just make a new account, or the contractor company can give that employee another account to edit from.

but this is trivially true of all contributing accounts to OSM, right?

But this time someone's salary depends on it, it is not just fly-by vanadlism for fun. They will be more persistent in staying active as mapper.

Rather than continually getting their accounts banned, wouldn't it be easier for them to eventually start responding to the OSM etiquette?

It is presumed that sometimes they don’t respond to changeset comments because they aren’t proficient in English (or the local language of whatever country they are mapping remotely).

Why assume that? Maybe there's a bug in their internal software, and it's cheaper to create a program that checks if you're banned and automatically creates a new account, than it is to fix their internal problem.

Hobbyists who keep getting their changes reverted and their account banned will eventually give up, especially if they're not actively trying to harm the project.

But a contractor who's paid for their work, even if it's not very good? They'll just keep going so they don't lose their job.

Hobbyists driven by passion tend to evaluate their work on quality. Contractors mostly evaluate on quantity, especially if their pay depends on such quantity.

It is like open source debate. Contributing back could either mean hiring/giving massive sponsorships to the core contributors, or it could mean giving out scraps. A couple meaningless lines of code here and there and the corporate sponsor gets to pretend they have fulfilled their social responsibility. The bulk of the labour is still born by those who toiled for years without material reward.

the complaint seems to be less about anything practical, and more about how you used to get a warm fuzzy feeling from contributing your data to a scrappy upstart, and now that OSM has achieved such success and is being used by so many companies, the warm fuzzy feeling has gone away.

not sure that's really a problem that needs solving.

Remember when Ubuntu started commercialising Debian?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com