, Volume 82, Issue 3, pp 455–473 | Cite as

Using small cities to understand the crowd behind OpenStreetMap

  • Sterling QuinnEmail author


As businesses and governments integrate OpenStreetMap (OSM) into their services in ways that require comprehensive coverage, there is a need to expand research outside of major urban areas and consider the strength of the map in smaller cities. A place-specific inquiry into the OSM contributor sets in small cities allows an intimate look at user motives, locations, and editing habits that are readily described in the OSM metadata and user profile pages, but often missed by aggregate studies of OSM data. Using quantitative and qualitative evidence from the OSM history of five small cities across North and South America, I show that OSM is not accumulating large local corpuses of editors outside of major urban areas. In these more remote places OSM remains largely at the mercy of an unpredictable mix of casual contributions, business interests, feature-specific “hobbyists”, bots, and importers, all passing through the map at different scales for different reasons. I present a typology of roles played by contributors as they expand and fix OSM in casual, systematic, and automated fashion. I argue that these roles are too complex to be conceptualized with the traditional “citizen as sensor” model of understanding volunteered geographic information. While some contributors are driven by pride of place, others are more interested in improving map quality or ensuring certain feature types are represented. Institutions considering the use of OSM data in their projects should be aware of these varied influences and their potential effects on the data.


Volunteered geographic information OpenStreetMap Small cities Crowdsourcing Geoweb South America 



The author would like to thank Alan MacEachren for his advice throughout the project and reading the early drafts, Greg Milbourne for assistance with data processing, Mark Graham for suggestions on the analysis methods and mapping, and those who contributed to the peer review of this manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest


Human and animal rights statement

This research did not involve direct interaction with human subjects, and no IRB submission was made for the research. This research did not involve interactions with animals.


  1. Anthony, D., Smith, S. W., & Williamson, T. (2005). Explaining quality in internet collective goods: Zealots and good Samaritans in the case of Wikipedia. Hanover: Dartmouth College. Accessed 15 January 2015.
  2. Barth, A. (2015). The paid mappers are coming. Presented at the State of the Map US 2015. Accessed 14 August 2015.
  3. Bell, D., & Jayne, M. (2009). Small cities? Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), 683–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brunn, S. D., & Wilson, M. W. (2013). Cape Town’s million plus black township of Khayelitsha: Terrae incognitae and the geographies and cartographies of silence. Habitat International, 39, 284–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Budhathoki, N. R. (2010). Participants’ motivations to contribute geographic information in an online community (Ph.D.). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA. Retrieved from
  6. Coleman, D. J., Georgiadou, Y., Labonte, J., et al. (2009). Volunteered geographic information: The nature and motivation of produsers. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 4(1), 332–358.Google Scholar
  7. Elwood, S., Goodchild, M. F., & Sui, D. (2013). Prospects for VGI research and the emerging fourth paradigm. In Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge (pp. 361–375). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4587-2_20. Accessed 3 October 2014
  8. Feick, R., & Roche, S. (2013). Understanding the value of VGI. In Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge (pp. 15–29). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4587-2_2. Accessed 14 August 2015.
  9. GIS Pro. (2007). The GIS Pro interview with Steve Coast, 18, 20–23.Google Scholar
  10. Glasze, G., & Perkins, C. (2015). Social and political dimensions of the OpenStreetMap project: Towards a critical geographical research agenda. In J. Jokar Arsanjani, A. Zipf, P. Mooney, & M. Helbich (Eds.), OpenStreetMap in GIScience: Experiences, research, and applications (pp. 143–166). Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graham, M. (2010). Neogeography and the palimpsests of place: Web 2.0 and the construction of a virtual earth. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 101(4), 422–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graham, M., Hogan, B., Straumann, R. K., & Medhat, A. (2014). Uneven geographies of user-generated information: Patterns of increasing informational poverty. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(4), 746–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graham, M., Zook, M., & Boulton, A. (2013). Augmented reality in urban places: Contested content and the duplicity of code. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 464–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grodach, C. (2009). Urban branding: An analysis of city homepage imagery. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 26(3), 181–197.Google Scholar
  16. Haklay, M. (2010). How good is volunteered geographical information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey datasets. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(4), 682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haklay, M. (2014). OpenStreetMap studies (and why VGI not equal OSM). Po Ve ShamMuki Haklay’s personal blog. Accessed 11 November 2015.
  18. Haklay, M., Basiouka, S., Antoniou, V., & Ather, A. (2010). How many volunteers does it take to map an area well? The validity of Linus’ law to volunteered geographic information. The Cartographic Journal, 47(4), 315–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harley, J. B. (1988). Silences and secrecy: The hidden agenda of cartography in early modern Europe. Imago mundi, 40(1), 57–76.Google Scholar
  20. Harley, J. B. (1989). Deconstructing the map. Cartographica, 26(2), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iba, T., Nemoto, K., Peters, B., & Gloor, P. A. (2010). Analyzing the creative editing behavior of Wikipedia editors: Through dynamic social network analysis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(4), 6441–6456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. INDEC (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos). (2001a). Ciudades que superan los 50.000 habitantes en 2001. Accessed 13 August 2015.
  23. INDEC (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos). (2001b). Cuadro 2.1 Total País según provincia. Población censada en 1991 y 2001 y variación intercensal absoluta y relativa 1991–2001. Accessed 13 August 2015.
  24. Johnson, P., & Sieber, R. (2013). Situating the adoption of VGI by government. In D. Sui, S. Elwood, & M. Goodchild (Eds.), Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge: Volunteered geographic information (VGI) in theory and practice (pp. 65–81). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Latif, S., Islam, K. R., Khan, M. M. I., & Ahmed, S. I. (2011). OpenStreetMap for the disaster management in Bangladesh. In IEEE conference on open systems (ICOS), 2011 (pp. 429–433). Accessed 30 September 2013.
  26. Lin, Y.-W. (2011). A qualitative enquiry into OpenStreetMap making. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 17(1), 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lui, M., & Baldwin, T. (2011). Cross-domain feature selection for language identification. In Proceedings of 5th international joint conference on natural language processing (pp. 553–561).Google Scholar
  28. Lui, M., & Baldwin, T. (2012). langid. py: An off-the-shelf language identification tool. In Proceedings of the ACL 2012 system demonstrations (pp. 25–30). Association for Computational Linguistics. Accessed 3 October 2014.
  29. Mashhadi, A., Quattrone, G., & Capra, L. (2015). The impact of society on volunteered geographic information: The case of OpenStreetMap. In J. Jokar Arsanjani, A. Zipf, P. Mooney, & M. Helbich (Eds.), OpenStreetMap in GIScience: Experiences, research, and applications (pp. 125–141). Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. McConchie, A. (2013). From wiki gardening to map gardening: Analyzing contribution patterns in OpenStreetMap. Presented at the State of the Map US, San Francisco, CA, USA.
  31. McHugh, B. (2014). Government as a contributing member of the OpenStreetMap (OSM) community. Presented at the FOSS4G 2014, Portland, OR, USA. Accessed 11 November 2015.
  32. Mooney, P., & Corcoran, P. (2014). Analysis of interaction and co-editing patterns amongst OpenStreetMap contributors. Transactions in GIS, 18(5), 633–659. doi: 10.1111/tgis.12051.
  33. Neis, P., Zielstra, D., & Zipf, A. (2013). Comparison of volunteered geographic information data contributions and community development for selected world regions. Future Internet, 5(2), 282–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neis, P., & Zipf, A. (2012). Analyzing the contributor activity of a volunteered geographic information project—The case of OpenStreetMap. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 1(2), 146–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parr, D. (2015). The production of volunteered geographic information: A study of OpenStreetMap in the United States (Doctoral dissertation). Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas. Retrieved from
  36. Perkins, C. (2011). Researching mapping: Methods, modes and moments in the (im)mutability of OpenStreetMap. Global Media Journal: Australian Edition, 5(2), 1–12. Accessed 12 January 2015.
  37. Peylen, L., Soden, R., Anderson, T. J., & Barrenechea, M. (2015). Success and scale in a data-producing organization: The socio-technical evolution of OpenStreetMap in response to humanitarian events. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 4113–4122). ACM.Google Scholar
  38. Quinn, S. (forthcoming). A geolinguistic approach for comprehending local influence in OpenStreetMap. Cartographica. doi: 10.3138/CART.3301.
  39. Raymond, E. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar. Knowledge, Technology and Policy, 12(3), 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steinmann, R., Gröchenig, S., Rehrl, K., & Brunauer, R. (2013). Contribution profiles of voluntary mappers in OpenStreetMap. In Online proceedings of the international workshop on action and interaction in volunteered geographic information, 16th AGILE conference. Accessed 3 October 2014.
  41. Stephens, M. (2013). Gender and the geoweb: Divisions in the production of user-generated cartographic information. GeoJournal, 78(6), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Touya, G., & Brando-Escobar, C. (2013). Detecting level-of-detail inconsistencies in volunteered geographic information data sets. Cartographica, 48(2), 134–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. United States Census Bureau. (2010). Interactive population map. United States Census Bureau. Accessed 13 August 2015.
  44. United States Census Bureau. (2014). Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical area totals dataset: Population and estimated components of change. April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014. Accessed 13 August 2015.
  45. Urban, F. (2002). Small town, big website?: Cities and their representation on the Internet. Cities, 19(1), 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilson, M. W., & Graham, M. (2013). Neogeography and volunteered geographic information: A conversation with Michael Goodchild and Andrew Turner. Environment and Planning A, 45(1), 10–18. doi: 10.1068/a44483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wood, H. (2014). The long tail of OpenStreetMap. Presented at the State of the Map 2014, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
  48. Zielstra, D., & Zipf, A. (2010). A comparative study of proprietary geodata and volunteered geographic information for Germany. In 13th AGILE international conference on geographic information science (Vol. 2010). Accessed 14 August 2015.
  49. Zook, M., Graham, M., Shelton, T., & Gorman, S. (2010). Volunteered geographic information and crowdsourcing disaster relief: A case study of the Haitian earthquake. World Medical and Health Policy, 2(2), 7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations