Nota bene: those end up as notes on the map which another mapper has to input manually. There's a lot of spam and dubious entries so I often no longer bother entering them, especially in places I don't know or where I cannot verify the information.
I was using Street Complete for some time and was always wondering if using these apps is considered helpful or if it only creates churn/noise. Is there a general consensus on that in the community?
Would it be more accepted to just do a few small, potentially not metadata-complete edits myself or is the review structure (if there is any) geared more towards fewer, more steady contributors?
Did one direct edit once and iirc it took ages to land in the map and I wasn't able to grasp if came from new editors' edits being scrutinized more carefully by too few reviewers, from the nature of the edits (deleting a bunch of buildings after demolition and probably not replacing it with the right area type) or if the release cycle for new edits to be included is just way longer than I would have expected.
As a frequent contributor myself I love StreetComplete and I wouldn't worry about it perhaps generating a few changesets more than strictly necessary (it tends to make one changeset per quest (with multiple amendments for individual answers) and also only during a certain time frame. Sure, that means that adding information to a staircase creates multiple changesets (incline, step_count, surface, handrail), but that doesn't really matter.
What StreetComplete is very good at, in my opinion, is simply QA on the ground. SC asks about features existing on the map (benches, bus stops, shops, roads, barriers, etc.) and some of them might go stale. So asking about opening hours of a shop might cause someone to look and notice that the shop is closed now, or replaced by another one, so in many cases the quests that add detail to objects have the nice side-effect that those are being looked at and reviewed whether they still exist, which otherwise does not happen often. The barrier to adding new data is often lower than fixing or removing outdated information.
And it's such a low barrier to entry, especially for people not familiar with OSM's tagging, since the UX is very well designed for beginners in my eyes (while still being useful for advanced mappers), that you can easily recommend it to people who like those kind of hobbies (e.g. geocaching, Pokémon Go). For me it was an excuse to go outside more, also to places I haven't been, during COVID-19, just to tick off another quest.
The review does not block the data being added, it's more of a request for feedback.
Different maps have different update cycles. The slippy map on osm.org is meant to update as quickly as possible, usually a few minutes, but sometimes there are hiccups. Zoom levels that show larger areas also update a little slower.
As long as what you are adding is up to date/accurate, I wouldn't worry about whether you've captured everything about the features. "This thing is here" is a lot better for the map than no information.
Yes, CoMaps lets users submit basic data that updates OSM for addresses and POIs. It's a harder problem than you may initially think too, quite often the delivery format of OSM data differs in schema from the DB format. In the case of OrganicMaps and CoMaps, they both generate offline-optimized map formats for distribution.
They can’t do so automatically. Osm Editors must approve. Apparantly OSM fears legislation when people copy info from google maps. They like to see evidence, like street sign photos. In my limited experience anyway.
I occasionally contribute to OSM. You just send your edit and they are directly live. I don't think there's prior moderation. On these apps you log in to OSM using an OSM account IIRC (though I mostly use EveryDoor or directly osm.org for this, occasionally StreetComplete, I don't contribute using Comaps)
Some apps don't edit OSM directly, but rather add a note on the map for others to edit. Maybe that's what they meant.
E.g., OrganicMaps often creates these kinds of notes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5377887 which for certain kinds of edits is safer than trying to directly edit. StreetComplete does the same in many cases when something no longer exists. I think, shops and other places can often be added directly, though since that has little to no ties to existing data.
But yeah, I'm using mostly StreetComplete (SCEE) when outside, sometimes Every Door and Vespucci. For offline map apps like Organic Maps it's likely not easy resolving potential conflicts with live OSM data that might be weeks or months newer than the map data in the app.
I can imagine it is not the same everywhere. I guess I have an active local chapter of editors. Given that I have 2 comments disagreeing and none concurring I guess this is an exception.
I've been editing OSM since 2015 and contributing to FOSS OSM apps for about half that, there have been conflicts or special cases in the past but edits on StreetComplete, OsmAnd, Organic Maps, and CoMaps all go live without any mandatory review. There's a "request review" checkbox on OSM changesets, but it's somewhat rare to actually get a review and the edit is live in the meantime
Do you have the slightest idea what OpenStreetMap is and how it works? It sounds like you have absolutely no clue, and it still doesn't prevent you from using that kind of language.
> CoMaps forked out of OrganicMaps after a row about money
Organic Maps is organized as a for-profit entity. CoMaps is not. This is a real difference, and the former asking for donations makes it look like a scam.
Looking at the OrganicMaps app on iOS and it seems to be free, with an option for donations in the menu . What does OrganicMap specifically do in order to make profit?
Always the rows about some kind of BS that fragments, fractures, and defuses the efforts into pet projects instead of ever actually being a viable alternative for the majority of people to corporate offerings.
The hardest thing about any effort that is two or more people is the interpersonal, coordination, consensus, and organization aspects. Everything else is easy in comparison.
How hard a sell that is depends heavily on how much that person values their time. I know people who are experts in their field, who have had their with-source Wikipedia edits reverted to incorrect or misleading information by people who have more time to argue online than they do.