<html><head></head><body>While the content of the policy is more or less OK with me, I think the overall tone could be lighter. <br>
I don't understand why this couldn't be written down as a guideline or 'good practice' instead of a policy. It could become a policy later. Where is the fun of OSM here? <br>
Yves <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">Le 21 novembre 2017 01:54:37 GMT+01:00, Frederik Ramm <frederik@remote.org> a écrit :<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">Hi,<br /><br /> the DWG has prepared a policy on "Directed Editing" (former working<br />title "Organised Editing Policy"). Read it here:<br /><br /><a href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Directed_Editing_Policy">https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Directed_Editing_Policy</a><br /><br />The policy picks up (but doesn't slavishly follow) the results of our<br />survey, where it became obvious that transparency and communications are<br />what mappers find most important about organised mapping efforts. The<br />policy replaces the somewhat fuzzy terms of "paid" and "organised"<br />editing with the concept of "directed editing", which is essentially<br />when you're required to edit OSM (because of work, a school assignment<br />etc) and/or when you're told by others exactly what and how to map.<br /><br />The DWG is interested in feedback on this proposal. Are you currently<br />involved in some form of editing that would be covered by the policy?<br />Does the policy present an unnecessary obstacle for some activities? If<br />you have witnessed organised mapping efforts that caused problems -<br />would these problems have been avoided if people had adhered to the<br />proposed policy?<br /><br />Bye<br />Frederik<br /></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>