4 ms·

> including how he doesn't think OSM will be relevant for much longer once someone manages to develop a mapping project into their self-driving cars As someon

> including how he doesn't think OSM will be relevant for much longer once someone manages to develop a mapping project into their self-driving cars As someone who intends to never drive again, this is very funny to me. Cars are very obviously not the future of human transport, self driving or otherwise. They take up an absurd amount of space.

thfuran 3y ago
They're very obviously the near to mid term future of transportation for a huge number of people.
KiranRao0 3y ago
> Cars are very obviously not the future of human transport I wish this were true. However, I'm seeing the trend pointing in the opposite direction almost everywhere. For example, almost every European country has seen a rise in the motorization rate. [1] China is also firmly on the rise, and America remains 80-90% [2] Given this, I don't expect that OSM has the ability/authority to make a dent in motor vehicle usage rates. I do, however, believe they can take advantage of the way the world exists today to improve open source mapping. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/DDN-20230530-1 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/D... [2] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/#department-of-transportation-federal https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-s... [Not cited, but neet]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27503807 https://www.jstor.org/stable/27503807
- pietervdvn 3y ago
  It's more complicated then that. For the U.S.: the urban sprawl and urban planning makes it impossible to not use a car for many people. The old, European cities have a bigger chance to go carfree. Some are actively working to it (e.g. Paris or Ghent), some are trying (Brussels), others are not even trying (Antwerp). In the long run, I hope car use will decline (so that only emergency services, nuts services, ...) need one - for the climate, for our health but mostly of all: a carfree city is a pleasant city. Have a look at https://social.notjustbikes.com/@notjustbikes https://social.notjustbikes.com/@notjustbikes , who does great videos about it.
- komali2 3y ago
  I should clarify: if it is our future, our future is grim. I'm optimistic that anti car efforts will win out in the end as our message spreads and people's quality of life decreases hand in hand with even further trafficization of their lives.
ikesau 3y ago
i don't like cars at all and think it's a terrible shame how they've influenced the design of cities, but i think we might still disagree on what future trends will be :) if you can entertain the idea that in 10 years there will be far more cars with lidar+cameras+gps around (plus the compute to process it all), steve's point is that this data will be very useful for generating real time road maps such that we won't need to rely on a network of pedestrian volunteers to manually update a database whenever a road gets closed for repair or a new condo is built.
thriftwy 3y ago
Self driving car can drive itself to a remote garage when not needed, and return back to your doorstep when needed - just press a button in your smartphone app five minutes prior. So they will stop taking space as soon they FSD.
- thfuran 3y ago
  That seems like it'd do little to decrease the amount of space cars take up: It doesn't decrease the amount of traffic (actually, empty cars driving around when they would've been parked before increases traffic), so it doesn't decrease the amount of roads. It doesn't decrease the amount of people driving to businesses, so it doesn't decrease the need for non-residential parking. It probably slightly decreases the footprint of residential parking by making it higher density, though it still must exist nearby and many people are probably still going to want garage space.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    It would absolutely decrease the amount of non-residential parking. You will be obliged to direct your car to off-site parking when driving to businesses in urban core. That's the main point. It will be somewhere in the vicinity so it will only congest local roads, which would be much emptier now that they're not used for parking.
    - komali2 3y ago
      Building the infrastructure sounds more expensive, physically difficult, and politically difficult than expanding bus and train lines. How do you justify the car option given that public transit objectively takes up less space and is better for the environment?
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        Because people want that? In reality, you can do both. You can also do neither. I live in a dense urban core already where it is often convenient to take a bus. But not always - there are those mysterious poles of unavailability. Upgrading it with automatic off-site parking could still free up a lot of street estate.
maxerickson 3y ago
It's anyway a weird analysis. Keeping up with changes to the street network is more or less easy. POI search data/metadata is the stuff that is missing, is something that provides a lot of value to users, and is not easy to automatically collate.

thfuran 3y ago

They're very obviously the near to mid term future of transportation for a huge number of people.

KiranRao0 3y ago

> Cars are very obviously not the future of human transport I wish this were true. However, I'm seeing the trend pointing in the opposite direction almost everywhere. For example, almost every European country has seen a rise in the motorization rate. [1] China is also firmly on the rise, and America remains 80-90% [2] Given this, I don't expect that OSM has the ability/authority to make a dent in motor vehicle usage rates. I do, however, believe they can take advantage of the way the world exists today to improve open source mapping. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/DDN-20230530-1 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/D... [2] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/#department-of-transportation-federal https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-s... [Not cited, but neet]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27503807 https://www.jstor.org/stable/27503807

pietervdvn 3y ago
It's more complicated then that. For the U.S.: the urban sprawl and urban planning makes it impossible to not use a car for many people. The old, European cities have a bigger chance to go carfree. Some are actively working to it (e.g. Paris or Ghent), some are trying (Brussels), others are not even trying (Antwerp). In the long run, I hope car use will decline (so that only emergency services, nuts services, ...) need one - for the climate, for our health but mostly of all: a carfree city is a pleasant city. Have a look at https://social.notjustbikes.com/@notjustbikes https://social.notjustbikes.com/@notjustbikes , who does great videos about it.
komali2 3y ago
I should clarify: if it is our future, our future is grim. I'm optimistic that anti car efforts will win out in the end as our message spreads and people's quality of life decreases hand in hand with even further trafficization of their lives.

ikesau 3y ago

i don't like cars at all and think it's a terrible shame how they've influenced the design of cities, but i think we might still disagree on what future trends will be :) if you can entertain the idea that in 10 years there will be far more cars with lidar+cameras+gps around (plus the compute to process it all), steve's point is that this data will be very useful for generating real time road maps such that we won't need to rely on a network of pedestrian volunteers to manually update a database whenever a road gets closed for repair or a new condo is built.

thriftwy 3y ago

Self driving car can drive itself to a remote garage when not needed, and return back to your doorstep when needed - just press a button in your smartphone app five minutes prior. So they will stop taking space as soon they FSD.

thfuran 3y ago
That seems like it'd do little to decrease the amount of space cars take up: It doesn't decrease the amount of traffic (actually, empty cars driving around when they would've been parked before increases traffic), so it doesn't decrease the amount of roads. It doesn't decrease the amount of people driving to businesses, so it doesn't decrease the need for non-residential parking. It probably slightly decreases the footprint of residential parking by making it higher density, though it still must exist nearby and many people are probably still going to want garage space.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  It would absolutely decrease the amount of non-residential parking. You will be obliged to direct your car to off-site parking when driving to businesses in urban core. That's the main point. It will be somewhere in the vicinity so it will only congest local roads, which would be much emptier now that they're not used for parking.
  - komali2 3y ago
    Building the infrastructure sounds more expensive, physically difficult, and politically difficult than expanding bus and train lines. How do you justify the car option given that public transit objectively takes up less space and is better for the environment?
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      Because people want that? In reality, you can do both. You can also do neither. I live in a dense urban core already where it is often convenient to take a bus. But not always - there are those mysterious poles of unavailability. Upgrading it with automatic off-site parking could still free up a lot of street estate.

maxerickson 3y ago

It's anyway a weird analysis. Keeping up with changes to the street network is more or less easy. POI search data/metadata is the stuff that is missing, is something that provides a lot of value to users, and is not easy to automatically collate.