[bradbeattie]

> OSM simply has to exist, and the longer it exists, the better the data will become.

Probably, but not necessarily. The world changes with time and if OSM contributions languish, it falls out of date with the world and tangibly becomes a worse product. Certainly not inevitable, but a possibility worth noting.

[quietbritishjim]

Agreed. In fact, I think the OSM total fraction of errors will exponentially decay towards some non-zero fixed fraction of errors. That's because, on average in the long term, the world probably changes at an approximately fixed rate (relative to total mappable features in the world) and OSM is updated/corrected at a fixed rate (relative to fraction of mappable features that are wrong or missing). Even given the benefit of a lot of time, the OSM can never catch up with a mapping service that updates faster because that other service will have a different equilibrium.

[Twisell]

As of current technology every geographical database lag behind real world and took time to catch up. 20 year ago the average lag was often accounted in years between two survey.

It would be nice to determine some random controls points and compare lag on different mapping service. The average lag would maybe maybe drop under a year for some (and it will depend on which feature, road update faster than building if you account for gps data).

However I really don't see why OSM would necessarily lag more than Google Map or any commercial database. Because the more OSM usage is widespread (directly or through apps) the more human "field sensors" you get to update the map. Same way that I don't think many commercial encyclopedia can claim that they are more up-to-date than Wikipedia to record new facts.

[Bakary]

The places where the data matters might keep a healthy update rhythm