SteveCoast_

There's nothing to buy. The primary asset is the dataset which is open anyway, and there are a fair amount of controls to make sure it stays that way.

There's a few different answers to that question. On one level, it was just kind of obvious. Back then, in 2004, Wikipedia was hot new technology and the wiki idea in general was spreading. Why not apply it to maps?

On another level, I had an old laptop with Debian Linux on it and a USB GPS device. I tried to use some mapping software but there were no maps. So why not make them?

On another level, the maps that were available in the UK and Europe tended to be very proprietary and expensive. So why not open them up?

On another level, I was young and naive.

Let's not forget though that OSM is now many, many people from all over the world. It wouldn't have worked if I hadn't convinced a lot of people to join in and help.

Hi Ed

I'll split this in to two. Mistakes and regrets.

Mistakes abound. OSM could have had an exit like waze. Segments (a data model we had prior to ways) diverted energy away. Trying to run mapping parties by telling people where or what to map rather than letting them self-select. Calling it OpenStreetMap when it's much more than streets.

Defining "mistake" would take too long, but we should note that many of these things are only mistakes when viewed under a certain light. Mistakes of some kind are inevitable when doing something new. I'm happy making mistakes because it means I'm learning something. What I discovered is that this doesn't apply to most people, for whom mistakes or even trying something which has a chance of becoming a mistake is... not something you do.

Which brings me to my only regret: Giving up too much power. I thought that everyone in the world thinks like I do, and would also give up power and try new things like I did. That for the most part simply didn't happen. It's worked out very well, and the people are great, and OSM hums along... but the days of taking big bets and risks is over. That drives me nuts, since there's so much more out there to do with open mapping than just making the map slightly better every year and running another conference. For example, addressing.

We've done very well, as you know. We blazed a trail for others to follow too. I just have a much higher set of ambitions, including OSM being "done" by now (which would include addressing, of course).

Absolutely. In fact many people have already. Here are some for Android:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Android

If you look around the OSM wiki you'll find many more for other platforms too (including Scout by Telenav, where I work).

Google people have been super supportive of OSM including funding our conference and so on. I think OSM just moves too slowly for what they're trying to achieve, and that's fine. The world can support more than one map or one ideology.

I think it would be hard for Google for a couple of reasons. First is the investment. Who wants to be the guy to write off billions of dollars? Second, the map isn't actually good enough yet for them, and they're not done yet. They're trying to get cars to drive themselves which in part requires great maps, and they're not there yet.

Will it ever happen? Eventually. I think it depends how long Google (and OSM) lasts, which depends on them (G) finding more than one business model, which enters in to the realm of speculation.

Think about it like this: Would you bet people wouldn't use wikipedia? In the end, if OSM is good enough at zero price, why wouldn't you use it?

On to the license.

The ODbL is a convenient thing to blame for not using OSM. I haven't found a use case yet where it wasn't really about something else, like a business decision. For example, some don't want to contribute addressing back to OSM and so "the license is bad". It's like saying wikipedia's license is "bad" because I have to credit wikipedia when I use it.

Is the license perfect? Absolutely not. But we're breaking new ground here. There isn't another large open data project close to the scope and size. Could we go public domain? Yes, but then it's an open question as to whether it would succeed without incentives to contribute anything to the pot. Hence discussion of Linux vs. BSD.