7 ms·

It says it uses a 3rd party service. Can you clarify why OSM isn't dogfooding it's own router? Though I'm a huge fan of OSM that sounds like a bit of a let down

It says it uses a 3rd party service. Can you clarify why OSM isn't dogfooding it's own router? Though I'm a huge fan of OSM that sounds like a bit of a let down.

dima55 12y ago
Because there is no "own router".
maxerickson 12y ago
OSM is primarily a data project. There isn't currently any notion of providing centralized end user services. The various services on openstreetmap.org don't have terribly strict usage policies, but they all pretty much ask heavy users to set up their own instance (or use other resources; for example, Mapquest has quite generous free usage, and there are lots of paid OSM tile hosters). If you click the stack on the right tool bar, you get a layers menu, where 4 of the styles are rendered and served by other projects. So the routing is similar to that, showcasing how the data can be used.
- nroets 12y ago
  Yes, it's great that it's possible to use OSM for many different purposes. However, all these compromises on the front page are too complicated for end users and scare them off. End users expect services that seamlessly work together. If centralization is needed to achieve that, then yes, OSMF needs centralization.
  - ZeroGravitas 12y ago
    The front page isn't intended for end users in the sense of "people looking for a map or directions", it's mainly focused on people who intend to map. People find it hard to get out of the "Google Maps" mindset, just as everyone approached Linux as a "Cheap Windows" when in reality it can be so much more. OSM's strategy (and data) aren't perfect, but they're growing the pie rather than fighting for a larger slice and doing pretty well with it. Just like using Linux has become a no-brainer for all sorts of projects from smartphones to supercomputer clusters to educational toys OSM is well on it's way to being the default peer-produced commons for geographical data. Whether that usage happens on one site or a million different commercial, government, non-profit and amateur sites isn't important.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I was trying to describe things as they are, not take a side. The interest generated by this change demonstrates your point well enough, OSRM has been available at http://map.project-osrm.org/ http://map.project-osrm.org/ with worldwide coverage for quite a while, and the other projects are also up for quite a while. I even see a bunch of OSM enthusiasts who were apparently oblivious to the availability of the routing services (saying 'wow, it works good' sort of indicates they haven't seen it work before).
nroets 12y ago
The routers are written by small teams that don't talk to each other. On the OSM routing mailing list, there was very little / no meaningful discussion in the last 2 or 3 years.
lorenzhs 12y ago
For one, it's anything but easy to write a fast and correct routing engine that produces good results. OSRM was (mainly) written by Dennis Luxen who literally has a PhD in route planning. Secondly, if these projects already exist and are easy to integrate, I fail to see why it should be problematic for OSM to use them. OSRM is completely open source, anyone can spin up their own instance if they wanted to, so someone else can host it if the current server goes down. Open source routing engines like OSRM exist so that OSM doesn't need to roll their own. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how you construe this to be a bad thing.
rmc 12y ago
OSM is much more decentralised than that. There isn't really a central OSM body that controls everything. 2 of the 3 routing engines used are written by members of the OSM community, are open source, and are designed to work with OSM data. Should we count them as "3rd party" or not? They aren't hosted on the main OSM servers, instead hosted on the servers of the respective projects.

It says it uses a 3rd party service. Can you clarify why OSM isn't dogfooding it's own router? Though I'm a huge fan of OSM that sounds like a bit of a let down.

dima55 12y ago

Because there is no "own router".

maxerickson 12y ago

OSM is primarily a data project. There isn't currently any notion of providing centralized end user services. The various services on openstreetmap.org don't have terribly strict usage policies, but they all pretty much ask heavy users to set up their own instance (or use other resources; for example, Mapquest has quite generous free usage, and there are lots of paid OSM tile hosters). If you click the stack on the right tool bar, you get a layers menu, where 4 of the styles are rendered and served by other projects. So the routing is similar to that, showcasing how the data can be used.

nroets 12y ago
Yes, it's great that it's possible to use OSM for many different purposes. However, all these compromises on the front page are too complicated for end users and scare them off. End users expect services that seamlessly work together. If centralization is needed to achieve that, then yes, OSMF needs centralization.
- ZeroGravitas 12y ago
  The front page isn't intended for end users in the sense of "people looking for a map or directions", it's mainly focused on people who intend to map. People find it hard to get out of the "Google Maps" mindset, just as everyone approached Linux as a "Cheap Windows" when in reality it can be so much more. OSM's strategy (and data) aren't perfect, but they're growing the pie rather than fighting for a larger slice and doing pretty well with it. Just like using Linux has become a no-brainer for all sorts of projects from smartphones to supercomputer clusters to educational toys OSM is well on it's way to being the default peer-produced commons for geographical data. Whether that usage happens on one site or a million different commercial, government, non-profit and amateur sites isn't important.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  I was trying to describe things as they are, not take a side. The interest generated by this change demonstrates your point well enough, OSRM has been available at http://map.project-osrm.org/ http://map.project-osrm.org/ with worldwide coverage for quite a while, and the other projects are also up for quite a while. I even see a bunch of OSM enthusiasts who were apparently oblivious to the availability of the routing services (saying 'wow, it works good' sort of indicates they haven't seen it work before).

nroets 12y ago

The routers are written by small teams that don't talk to each other. On the OSM routing mailing list, there was very little / no meaningful discussion in the last 2 or 3 years.

lorenzhs 12y ago

For one, it's anything but easy to write a fast and correct routing engine that produces good results. OSRM was (mainly) written by Dennis Luxen who literally has a PhD in route planning. Secondly, if these projects already exist and are easy to integrate, I fail to see why it should be problematic for OSM to use them. OSRM is completely open source, anyone can spin up their own instance if they wanted to, so someone else can host it if the current server goes down. Open source routing engines like OSRM exist so that OSM doesn't need to roll their own. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how you construe this to be a bad thing.

rmc 12y ago

OSM is much more decentralised than that. There isn't really a central OSM body that controls everything. 2 of the 3 routing engines used are written by members of the OSM community, are open source, and are designed to work with OSM data. Should we count them as "3rd party" or not? They aren't hosted on the main OSM servers, instead hosted on the servers of the respective projects.