* The copyleft license ODbL probably will mean that there never will be a huge adoption. The situation simply is different with a geo database compared to software or one art piece.
* Vandalism very easily goes unnoticed, as there is no review at all for edits. If something that went wrong is found, reverting is very hard to do, often left to some expert group that only does that.
* Tags indicating when things were last checked are hardly in use. So the database contains tons of information that might not be true anymore or might never have been true.
* The data model lacks persistency, the tags of a shop might go from a node to the building area it's in or otherwise effectively loosing the history. It's very hard to find out where something really came from (editor and source).
* The data model also lacks a good way of dealing with areas (especially ones with holes in them), multipolygon relations are a hack barely supported in editors that often lead beginners to feel overwhelmed. On the other hand there are no curves, just straight lines, because bezier lines are supposed to be too confusing for beginners.
* All the data is in one huge database, not split up into layers.
* There are hardly any volunteers in America. It's an import desert.
Complete agree, it was stupid to move to the ODbL.
* vandalism
I've only seen once instance of serious vandalism -- I reported it on their IRC and it was updated within a few hours. And this was a mass attack by 4chan. I don't know if there's a practical way around this system. If people were vetted and had to wait before changes were accepted I think it would hurt contributions.
* Last use
I agree but all maps have the problem of getting outdated. Unless mapping is completely automated (drones+CV+ML? get on it HN) how would you avoid this?
* Inconsistent tagging
Yeah this sucks but you can deal with it at the application level usually
* Multipolygon areas
I haven't used OSM much recently but I know they did a decent overhaul with the site and the editor (the old editor was some flash tool I think). Dealing with complex polygons in software sucks so I understand why this is an issue. They should provide simple guidelines (CCW for the outside polys, CW for the inside polys), reject invalid polygons and provide a suggestion to go on IRC if they are having issues.
* Bezier curves
This is not a good idea. Why would you want to support bezier curves in map data? Its un-needed complexity. I could see support in an editor that then just creates an approximated poly line.
* One huge database
OSM is supposed to be a generic data set for many purposes. Some people might want hiking trails, others might want all the bus stops in a city, others may only want all the highways in a country, etc. Creating a system to extract and serve specific data would not only be complex it would be expensive. You'd need a lot of compute time. There are tools and tutorials for extracting what you need from the data set. There are also localized data sets available for many places (country, province/state etc).
* American volunteers
Yes its really strange that this is the case. Its impressive to see some of the places in Europe (like Germany!) and how rich the OSM data is and how active the community is compared to here. There are local meet ups in cities though where people get together and map stuff. If it interests you, you can always participate.
Maybe you can't, but that means you're always stuck offering an inferior product compared to those closed solutions which companies can pump money into.
From OSM:
> You are free to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt our data, as long as you credit OpenStreetMap and its contributors. If you alter or build upon our data, you may distribute the result only under the same license.
How is this not an absolute necessity for the long term success of the project? Without it, someone can just slurp up the data, add their own, and then shut OSM out.
In essence, careful respect for the license isn't the main driver for contribution.
I think it would certainly lead to more competitors, people would take the data and do their own value add, but I think it is quite an open question whether they would be able to actually become considerably better databases.
(I'm roughly indifferent to the share back requirement. I don't think it is needed but given how much support there is for it in the community it isn't worth discussing over and over)
Some companies have been interested in using and contributing back to OSM data, but didn't go further, because of the license.
Why do you think a fork that lacks the advantage of a free license can become a threat to the continued existence of a project?
Edit: Parent likely meant mapping data using supported smart phones, converting data, and uploading it alongside notes or photos. Their beginners guide [1] covers it.
If you want to help you can just register on openstreetmap.org and begin editing things in your area you know are missing/incorrect. There's also a beginner's guide in the openstreetmap wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners%27_guide
So yes, love OSM, will probably hardly use Google Maps from now on.
I'm quite shocked. For lack of better explanation this seems like foul play.
Perhaps it comes out differently for you: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=openstreetmap
https://s33.postimg.org/7iaf0z47j/Screenshot_from_2016_05_25...
But copy-pasting the resulting URL into Tor results in a 403 page.
Does anyone have a reasonable suggestion for this behaviour?
EDIT: Why the downvote? It's honestly the last thing. I don't know of an alternative, and instead of downvoting, give me alternatives! I want them!
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2016/05/19Apple-Opens-Develo...
Does this even make sense for mapping? If there is a single correct result then that is the only thing I want. If there are multiple possible results I want to see them all. This is a problem best suited to complete databases rather than probability based search algorithms. Adverts can only make this even worse than it is now.
Either way it's a red flag that Google software is becoming less and less desirable on the consumer market.