It appears Google tries to degrade alternative application stores to just another app offered through the Play Store, and therefore subject to Google’s policies (including an annual $5,000 fee for policy and security reviews). So I wouldn’t be surprised this is very much intentional: as to force application stores through a channel controlled by Google, to technically allow competition (at Google’s discretion) while ultimately killing “side-loading” through other sources.

An application that would make donating to FOSS projects, especially GPL-licensed works (or at least: those not trying to cater to corporations) in desperate need of support, effortless. In that: a periodic budget can be determined, time spent actively using applications is tracked, an application’s userbase is taken into consideration (as their cumulative income may eat too much into budgets: possibly better spent supporting smaller projects), and personal preference can be given (including an option to filter license types); as to rank the applications based on perceived value, and fraction the budget accordingly.

I would be happy to support projects that I actively, or to a lesser degree, rely on. But the process of taking all steps required to support a project is simply too manual, and outright unmanageable, when trying to take into account all system components. I really want the incentives to shift from MIT to GPL, so that maintainers don’t effectively end up being controlled by corporate paychecks; and are rather supported by individual end users. This should in theory make FOSS more resilient to any future restrictions to source access, which could hamper the long-term parity of forks, seeking to strip anti-features.

Sounds noble, but I have a gut-feeling it will simply result in more expensive electronics; which simply aren’t expensive enough as is… If an OEM is required to provide parts for 10 years for each device it sells, you better expect them to pass that additional cost onto the consumer. Besides that, there are already manufacturers providing parts for devices, but the high relative cost of parts make repairs unattractive, compared to simply “upgrading”. And the cheap segment of devices might disappear altogether, even more adware comes preinstalled onto them, or this line of devices is being subsidized by higher segments. Or perhaps more OEMs will lean into consumers leasing devices on a subscription basis, which would also compensate for the loss in sales for new devices (if actually effective); and seems in line with the anti-ownership trajectory. :)

Thanks for reminding me to go into settings and uncheck ‘Show Bot Accounts’. Why is this a feature anyways?

OP seems to be same person as the OP of the Mastodon post. I think it would a lot more clear to copy the content of the Mastodon post over to this Lemmy post, and have a link directly to the FSF article.

Wouldn’t it be more useful to link to: https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2026/summer/ensuring-freedom-one-blob-at-a-time? Interesting project though.

Are you using the editor of openstreetmap.org (osm.org), or are you using some sort of app or alternative editor?

It always takes a few minutes for the map to render the updates (and often requires you to clear the cache: on the browser at least). For the routing to take the new path into consideration, it usually takes about a day or something, so I wouldn’t be waiting for that; just try again tomorrow and it should work. ;)

Because there’s no routable path there, and if there’s no indication of such a path being there, it should not be mapped. There’s cases of informal paths @roux2scour@jlai.lu’s picture describes, and may be tagged with “informal=yes”. Other than that, I’m not aware of any routing services, which would behave like you’d want them to. The path of the starting point also seems raised (as being on a hill), compared to the endpoint; so I’m not sure how desirable this particular case would be, even if it were to be supported.

I still prefer mobile users adding features, even if they are of an unusual object type; effectively being another type of fixme to desktop users. But instead of another desktop user integrating these elements, I rather have mobile users on the desktop as well; as to integrate their mobile changes when at home. If you’re sightseeing, these applications are very helpful, for creating/editing POIs and effectively sketching out non-POI features; but the latter does require some work to integrate them.

Quoting another comment of mine. Your use of the tool is something I’m advocating for, really; I recognize it’s usefulness, but am not treating it as a substitute for desktop editors.

There’s quite some changes by First World contributors in Africa, primarily from mapping events. Perhaps they could also play a role in integrating POI and line elements (which are traditionally areas); or maybe allow a more POI- and line-based standard in Africa, not requiring areas for such objects. Or an intuitive UI, supporting editing of geometries, could be added; despite gluing and complicated relationships, etc. I would love to be proven wrong in my skepticism.

Ah okay, now I get it; I wasn’t familiar with that. Satelliet Data Portaal provides both partial (more recent), and full mosaics (less recent) WMTS from multiple sources (Pleiades-NEO or SuperView-NEO); which might complicate things (having to load the right imagery, based on the location being edited for the partial captures; and selecting the right source). The resolution, especially from the partial captures, but also the mosaics, doesn’t really hold up to something like PDOK or Esri. So perhaps this source being the default might not desirable, but having it as an option (especially the mosaic) would be neat.

OSM is a community project, someone have to the the PR, It won’t show up automagically without human intervention.

Is this referring to the “mass imports” part, you would argue are done in batches by many contributors? If so, then yes, mass import might give the wrong idea, I agree. But even if imported by many over time, the result is still a mass import from these open databases (minus a few addresses maybe, drawn in by hand; or roads not yet aligned with BGT, in case of The Netherlands).

Are you sure its license is compatible? E.g. The website says I can’t view it because I’m not in the Netherlands. There are a lot of frequent editors from there, it’s strange they haven’t added it yet.

I can’t find the forum post regarding this, but I’m quite sure the conclusion was it being compatible; despite viewing being restricted to Dutch citizens (because it’s a service provided by The Netherlands). It’s a quite common source here, especially for recent changes (which other imagery just doesn’t provide). And they are providing WMTS directly, so if they wanted to restrict usage for georeferencing, I don’t understand why they’d do that.

Editing geometries is hard enough as it is on the desktop (especially with glued points), so I can’t imagine making such changes on the mobile. I think it’s best to not allow editing geometries, and to leave such changes to devices better suited for the task.

Oh, you can add new things, that’s perfectly fine. I still prefer mobile users adding features, even if they are of an unusual object type; effectively being another type of fixme to desktop users. But instead of another desktop user integrating these elements, I rather have mobile users on the desktop as well; as to integrate their mobile changes when at home. If you’re sightseeing, these applications are very helpful, for creating/editing POIs and effectively sketching out non-POI features; but the latter does require some work to integrate them.

If that’s the only way you’re going to contribute to OSM, by all means, go for it. But as a desktop OSM editor, I really dislike some of the incentives pushed by mobile applications. Primarily not adding objects as polygons (as it would be difficult to draw on such devices), but adding them as POIs (parking, amenities, etc.) and paths (waterways for instance: where paths are often used for just naming, or as water"ways", like for marine traffic). This often leads me to correct these changes, as they really stand out compared to the rest of the map. So generally, I view these tools as complementary, rather than final changes; unless it’s changes to POIs or something, which is where these applications shine, in my opinion.

I personally quite like OsmAnd’s granular control, but understand how others might experience this as being overwhelming; which big-tech’s restrictive… I mean “modern” user-experience (UX) might be to blame for. There are however quite some alternatives to pick from, if you wanted a more minimalist approach to UX; which OsmAnd could also provide by default (while allowing advanced users to toggle additional “expert” settings).

What makes Google “Maps” superior to OSM-based maps, is not its inferior “map”, but rather the navigational aspect: businesses and other ‘points of interests’ (POIs) registering their location to Google, public transit data being supplied to it (allowing for planning), traffic statistics (through creepy location tracking, even in the background unless opted out), etc.; and bundles all into a single, undeniably convenient application.

I would argue OSM data is primarily mass imports, from other permissive or open (government) databases; which are strongly dependent on region. For The Netherlands: BAG (basic registration of addresses and buildings) and BGT (basic registration of large-scale topography), make up a large portion of the data presented (which are either directly imported or used as a reference). Although, relative to real-world changes they might temporarily lack behind, and users add details based on satellite imagery.

Regarding satellite imagery: editors don’t always have up-to-date imagery, leading to some users undoing changes others have made. In The Netherlands, the government provides relatively recent satellite imagery: which can be imported into the alternative JOSM editor as an WMTS layer. And you may also want to check the comments of the last change: in OSM’s own iD editor you can click the “last modified …” link, all the way at the bottom of the “Edit object” tab, for the selected object.

Another thing I would really recommend, is checking how other mappers have added certain features. Which is sometimes easier to understand than OSM’s documentation; which doesn’t always correspond to practice (possibly dependent on region). A very useful tool for this is Overpass Turbo, which you can use to search for certain elements, to see how others have implemented these.

I know this might all feel a little overwhelming, but I wish I had known these things earlier in my mapping journey. I started doing it because I noticed things missing, that I knew existed as a mailman. Just starting with smaller changes to get my feet wet, and gradually working my way to larger changes. As long as you don’t start taring up large roads (including their often many relationships), you’ll be just fine; and might even become hooked (as it can be quite satisfying, having created another beautiful part).