This is yet another "We found a community project providing us with billions of dollars in free work but don't find it worth the effort to contribute anything back"
I think they in the end decided to fork OSM and make it proprietary to keep the data in-house; but I might be wrong. I was not there anymore.
edit: maybe I am wrong. It was Grab, "uber for Asia". They still edit OSM it seems...
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Grab#Grab_Data_Team
edit2: the users seem to be inactive now, so maybe I was right. I don't know.
edit3: when I look at the corporate members, lots of them seem to be taxi companies. I guess it makes sense. I see Gojek, Grab and Bolt.
This isn't the first time I've seen a company contributing back to open source but completely neglecting to mention it in their post about it. It's weird, usually companies love to virtue signal about any tiny thing they do for society.
https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/
> Share-Alike: If you publicly use any adapted version of this database, or works produced from an adapted database, you must also offer that adapted database under the ODbL.
One argument would certainly be: Employees / engineers tend to know much better which projects are worth supporting and/or in need of financial help.
That doesn't sound right to me, I'm curious if you have any examples or sources
I guess it's possible though they could just deal with that if they feel like having better maps is a significant competitive advantage, but if the goal is just to not be dependent on Google upstreaming the edits sounds like a better idea.
Nothing seems to indicate so far that they're not fine with the situation so it looks like everyone is happy.
Even if Lyft would not give back in some form (spoiler: they do, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lyft), it spreads awareness and drivers will figure out they can fix issues themselves.