@polyglot: somebody in the community came with a comment regarding “superrelations”: “I propose that we do not continue this historical error. Relations are not collections; a super relation to group all network is an (common) error. This is even noted on the wiki as being bad practice (otherwise, I could also create a super-relation of routes going north to south, or shaded ones, or lots of collection criteria). I ‘m not talking about relation about one route per relation, but about super-relation (relation having relation as members)”

This is what I found on the wiki: osm.wiki/Relation:route#Creating_super-relations_for_routes

What’s your thought about this?

I fully support the statement that ““OSM is a movement” or at least should strive to become it! :-)

I think that the Belgian OSM-community is already applying this “movement-phylosophy”; I just don’t think it’s being fully propagated that way yet … it seems to me an exciting and ongoing challenge to make OSM as open as possible to externals who are looking for more “depth” in (open) data, maps, geo-info etc …

thanks for your extensive post. I had a first quick read. I never heard of (Bing) Map Builder before. For now I have these questions:

1. how long +/- does Map Builder exist?
2. is the copyright issue something you discovered yourself or is the OSMF already aware of it?
3. do you or somebody else know if the OSMF already got in touch with Microsoft about the issues (copyright, user account) you mentioned in your post?