# Looking longer-term: Where we want to be in 1, 3, and 5 years

Group work:

## What has changed in OSM since you joined?

> [name=Guillaume] OSM is a lot better, sometimes the best map. It is now essential in many places. The governance model is showing its limits - it is becoming hard for the community - whatever that means - to take decisions.
What *hasn't* changed: a lot of the infrastructure and software hasn't evolved much.

> [name=Paul] Become default baseline for map choice. More corporate control and influence.

> [name=Allan] demand for data has increased and is in demand by governments, emergency workers, large swaths of societies, it is no longer viewed as a hobby project in most of the world.

> [name=Tobias] Imagery being an almost indispensable part of many workflows
Governments offering data under OSM-compatible licenses
More large companies (especially ones whose primary focus isn't OSM) are involved in the project
HOT exists and is prominent
Micromapping (+ 3D, indoor, ...)
Focus on maintenance

> [name=Rory] More data. Better & new tech using OSM (eg overpass turbo, routing). More & different users of OSM (incl corporte uses). Better UI (better, more friendly tools/editors, map updated instantaneously). Mapping changed: less GPS devices. Mobile editing & data collection. OSM is now usable (IMO) as a real replacement for other maps.

> [name=Joost] data density (every forest used to be missing paths); becoming default map (not this weird project anymore); much more organisations want to be part of it; more paid mapping; take-off of Latin American communities

> [name=Mikel] It was a crazy idea that barely worked built of passion (that hasn't changed). It's now global infrastructure for maps, also essential for innumerable use around the planet. It's grown vastly more complex in the tech and community ecosystem, and become more difficult to make a "core" contribution. It's impossible to know everyone and everything happening in full depth. It's simultaneously on the edge of innovation (in tech, community engagement) and in many quarters "conservative" about change.
>

## Why does OSM exist?

> [name=Allan] "To create a map of the world that anyone can use."

> [name=Guillaume] Goal: freely reusable geographical data. How: it only exists if there is a community of humans who manage to work together; I've seen it make all the difference. While the goal of the project isn't the community itself, it is an essential condition.

> [name=Rory] To make a map of the world under an open licence, without barriers, in a wiki fashion. To give everyone control of the map they use. To provide a (geo) commons that everyone can use, in new, interesting and unpredicted ways. To create a community of people who want to do this.

> [name=Mikel] People care deeply about their world and it's a direct way to contribute, within a community.

> [name=Paul] To create an open map of the world not under central control that anyone can edit. To create a community of people building a map.

> [name=joost] to allow people to map their world together in a useful way

> [name=Tobias] Because humanity needs a map of the world with no/very little legal restrictions on its use.

## Your 1-line statement of what you want to be saying about OSM in 5 years

> [name=Allan] OSM infrastructure stably and reliably provides a truly global cartographic database to all comers.

> [name=Guillaume] The best source for geographical data users and producers anywhere

> [name=Rory] osm is "still" a project of people mapping things without requiring permission from gatekeepers.

> [name=Paul] We remain a community driven by individual contributors.

> [name=Mikel] OpenStreetMap is a community where a wide range people feel welcome to make many types of contributions.

> [name=Tobias] "Nobody ever gets fired for using OSM."

> [name=joost] we're still mapping all the things

## In 5 years:

**Must happen or be true**
> [name=Allan]
> * Infrastructure must keep up with demand for services.
> * Local mapper base must expand to cover the world.
> * Incivility must end since it is a barrier to expanding the local mappers (=source of local knowledge).

> [name=Guillaume]
> * The community must be able to decide on norms and rules, and enforce them, both inside and outside of the project. For example: tagging. Agreement shouldn't be required to do everything, but disagreement by the community should always be possible.
> * All stakeholders must be able to participate in the governance process.
> * Disputes must become easier to resolve.

> [name=Joost]
>* core infrastructure is significantly improved
>* the contributor/userbase is more in line with population
>* we find a balance between volunteering and paid OSMF work / paid mapping

> [name=Mikel]
>* The infrastructure is stable and managed, in part at least, by dedicated staff.
>* Community is welcoming to differences in experience and approaches to mapping.

> [name=Paul]
>* Attribution is seen as mandatory, not optional
>* Mapping remains fun
>* Approval from authority is not needed. Individuals can start projects or gather local mappers without asking anyone
>* Clear policies on conflict of interest

> [name=Rory]
> * servers & software should be pretty reliable
> * tools & software is still usable on modern devices/hardware
> * it must remain fun!
> * must still be possible to do things with OSM without needing approval from some central governing body
> * be more representative of humanity (diversity again)

> [name=Tobias]
> * OSM data is available under an open license
>

### NOTES

Allan - Board needs to address civility issues on e.g. Tagging mailing list

**Should happen or be true**
> [name=Allan]
> * community remains robust and expands geographically and diversifies
> * Foundation membership expands to encompass the global mapping community
> * Stop the bickering over tagging, resolve dispute between freeform tagging and need for data consistency.

> [name=Guillaume]
> * Easier to contribute and maintain data, both in bulk and node-by-node
> * Easier to use data in all kinds of projects
> * Clarify what it means to be a member: conditions, expectations. On the other hand, we shouldn't shut the door on new participants.

> [name=Joost]
> * number of contributors must rise
>* data use should increase
>* data use should more often lead to contributing
>* infighting is replaced by pluralism
>* core members loosen their grip on the project (let it evolve)

> [name=Mikel]
>* The OSMF is a reliable organization for its members, community, and other organizations.
>* Governance structures are distributed among all regions.
>* Our budget is still relatively small to our impact, but is at least an order of magnitude larger.
>* A well defined governance structure for core OSM software projects is established.
>* Board utilizes professional expertise in some way, that may not come from directly in the community.
>* Our values and expectations are clearly encoded in policy statements

> [name=Paul]
>* Active mappers continue to rise
>* OSMF is LetsEncrypt sized, not WMF sized

> [name=Rory]
> * continued steady rise in number of active contributors
> * continued steady rise in amount of data added
> * increased diversity in contributors
> * still be possible for volunteers to do things and make an impact

> [name=Tobias]
> * We have a lot more contributors
> * Strong grassroots communities exist in all parts of the world
> * Powerful editors make mappers more productive than they are today
> * FOSS projects in the OSM ecosystem routinely cooperate with each other
> * tagging for core features is well documented and widely supported, with new ideas (as well as updates to the core) still popping up in an organic fashion
> * mappers feel welcome and actively participate in our official communication platforms
>

**Would be nice to happen or be true**
> [name=Allan]
> * software development is less chaotic
> * paid sysadmins and software developers to maintain API and website
> * corporate donors are willing to fund OSM the way they fund Linux Foundation

> [name=Guillaume]
> * Healthy ecosystem of software and providers
> * Many local groups

> [name=Joost]
> * OSM core is seen as progressive / exciting
> * the data is increasingly standardised (for "standard" stuff)

> [name=Mikel]
>* OSM is an expected part of a professional education in mapping.
>* API 1.0
>* Technical innovation to make maintenance and update of data easier and more fun.

> [name=Paul]
>* Local mapping groups everywhere

> [name=Rory]
> * big cash donation!
> * some new radical use of OSM data that blows regular people away
> * Wide variety of data consuming tools

> [name=Tobias]
> * We have established pipelines for feeding authoritative updates into our maintenance process
> * Maintainers and core developers of popular OSM FOSS projects can make a living working on their tools
> * our API is at version 0.7+, with features such as areas, anonymous nodes, references, ...
> * most mappers have a nearby RL OSM community

**Should not happen or be true**
> [name=Allan]
> * disillusionment of community--community abandonment of project
> * corporate takeover of OSM project, loss of local knowledge focus
> * project implodes due to under-resourcing of infrastructure

> [name=Guillaume]
* (nothing to add :))

> [name=Joost]
>* The project should not fork
>* We're only maintaining data & infrastructure because we lost our hunger

> [name=Mikel]
>* Corporations are driven away from OSM
>* Tagging system has not evolved at all
>* We're still debating the same issues

> [name=Paul]
>* Corporations become gatekeepers of data
>* Filtered versions of OSM become more popular
>* Tagging requires approval

> [name=Rory]
> * licence change to remove share alike
> * (another) project fork
> * massive community blow up & split
> * change tagging system from current folksonomy to something that requires voting/approval
> * foundation & project purchased

> [name=Tobias]
> * Any single organization or use case dominates OSM or the foundation
> * Contributors need permission or need to deal with excessive bureaucracy to implement their ideas
> * People are afraid of speaking their mind openly in our community

**Anything else**
> [name=Allan]
> * Too many communication channels, too many stovepipes.

> [name=Guillaume]
> It would be nice if getting things changed in OSM became easier.

> [name=Joost]
> [name=Mikel]
> [name=Paul]
> [name=Rory]
> [name=Tobias]

## 1 Year MVP: What do we need to accomplish in 2020 to bring this vision into reality?

> [name=Allan]
> * Face up to reality of expanding demand for OSM data.
> * Ramp up infrastructure. +1
> * Budget for improved infrastructure and paid staff, including structured fundraising. +1
> * Prepare to hire paid sysadmins/developer for API.
> * Expand mapper base geographically.
> * Diversify mapper base across all dimensions. +1
> * Expand Foundation membership geographically.

> [name=Guillaume]
> * Practical solutions on governance, e.g. tagging, software behaviour, community disputes, attribution +1
> * Hired assistance for problems where human time is the choking point, e.g. sysadmins +1
> * (Re)build trust and dialogue in the wider community. +1
> * Encourage OSMF membership by making it the place where decisions happen
> * Sustainable, larger sources of income to fund all this :)

> [name=Joost]
> * a strategy for core growth that both the Board and the sysadmins believe in +1
> * a strategy for extending paid work (and having started implementing it)
> * setting up community feedback loops to steer the direction of said paid work
> * increasingly set expectations for community behaviour

> [name=Mikel]
> * The sysadmin/owg structure has evolved to be more sustainable. +1 +1
> * Board has direct connection with diverse parts of the community +1
> * Clear statement of corporate expectations in OSM (not just organized editing)
> * At least 2 core OSM software projects have defined governance structures
> * LCCWG has evolved to facilitate broad voices and knowledge sharing
> * Microgrants successful, and moving on V2
> * DISC has wrapped up first round of work
> * Attribution guidelines resolved +1
> * Established "HR" structure

> [name=Paul]
> * Conflict of interest policies
> * Build trust of the OSMF +1
> * Start enforcing attribution

> [name=Rory]
> * OSMF supports the OSM project, so make sure OSM proj. doens't need support. e.g. funding/etc for tech resources
> * Promote OSM more (e.g. stickers, resources, translations, make resources)
> * protect the OSM proj from takeover or external control. +1
> * enforce attrib rules +1

> [name=Tobias]
> * Finish defenses against internal and external takeover
> * Define hiring strategy and boundaries +1 +1 +1 +1
> * Have a plan to fix communication platforms +1 +1 +1
> * Define and begin enforcing attribution guidelines + tile license

Discussion Notes:

--8<-cut-here---
> [name=Allan]

> [name=Guillaume]

> [name=Joost]

> [name=Mikel]

> [name=Paul]

> [name=Rory]

> [name=Tobias]
--8------