<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1250">
</head>
<body>
<div>When you aren’t sure of the exact nature of a service road it makes perfect sense to leave out the service= tag. If that makes it more prominent it’s the fault of the renderer.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--</div>
<div>Andrew<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Greg Troxel <gdt@lexort.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> 22 March 2020 16:46<br>
<b>To:</b> Dave F <davefoxfac63@btinternet.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Dave F via talk <talk@openstreetmap.org>; OpenStreetMap talk-us list <talk-us@openstreetmap.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [OSM-talk] Taking a break and a call for help</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Dave F <davefoxfac63@btinternet.com> writes:<br>
<br>
> On 21/03/2020 20:59, Greg Troxel wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> This really seems unfair.<br>
>><br>
>> When someone maps for OSM because they want to, they have goals and a<br>
>> typically a good attitude about community norms.<br>
>><br>
>> When someone is a a paid mapper, their goals come from the person who is<br>
>> paying them, and they don't necessarily care about the overall health of<br>
>> OSM.<br>
>><br>
>> So this "paid mapping is a bit scary" notion is 100% accurate.<br>
><br>
> You've made a leap in logic there. From guessing to 100% true.<br>
<br>
No leap, and no guessing.<br>
<br>
I have made a logical conclusion about a situation with a structural<br>
conflict of interest.<br>
<br>
It is entirely normal in our greater society to recognize conflicts of<br>
interest and to mitigate them. In open source, we don't talk about it<br>
much, but usually contributions come in chunks and are reviewed. OSM<br>
doesn't have a review process, really (not a complain - just that<br>
review-before-merge isn't something that can address COI in OSM.<br>
<br>
I did not say (and do not mean) any of<br>
<br>
all paid mappers are bad people<br>
<br>
all edits done by paid mappers are bad<br>
<br>
My point is that when people are paid to map, there is a structural<br>
conflict of interest between the good of OSM and the goals/incentives<br>
impressed on the paid mapper. Again, that doesn't mean it's always<br>
misaligned - it means that the possibility is very real, and we<br>
currently don't have a way to deal with this. So I find the general<br>
situation inherently fraught.<br>
<br>
(There's also the issue of misalignment between the good of OSM and the<br>
goals of the employer, but I'm assuming that the employer's goals flow<br>
down to paid mappers goals, for a competent employer.)<br>
<br>
<br>
>> That doesn't mean all paid apping is bad; were I to take money from<br>
>> the local chamber of commerce to make sure all their businesses were<br>
>> on the map with opening hours and other details, all of it would be<br>
>> done in a way that other mappers would think is correct, or at least<br>
>> just as correct as if I were doing it for fun. But the idea that<br>
>> people are hired into a position and given instructions might lead to<br>
>> bad outcomes is quite sensible. Really these edits are not so<br>
>> different from mechanical edits, and I think the organizers need to<br>
>> own the responsibilility for high quality, and the standard should be<br>
>> quite a bit better than normal hand mapping norms.<br>
><br>
> What's the betting you'd be the first to complain when your parcel is<br>
> 30 minutes after it's allocated delivery time, because the driver<br>
> couldn't find the right driveway.<br>
<br>
Now you have crossed into ad hominem and strawmen.<br>
<br>
Note that what you quoted from me said "might lead to bad outcomes", not<br>
"always will".<br>
<br>
I did not say that anybody, Amazon included, adding driveways following<br>
existing norms was a bad thing. Around me the average edit quality for<br>
driveway additions has been good -- and I have not complained about<br>
them. There have been some with not quite right tagging, but mostly<br>
they've been ok, and its been things like "highway=service" without<br>
"service-driveway" -- not egregious, still better than before addition,<br>
but too heavy on the render, as well as not quite right.<br>
<br>
My belief is that a bunch of paid mappers with a narrow focus and<br>
basically only adding missing things is quite likely to be mostly ok.<br>
Once you get into changes with more nuance, I expect more trouble.<br>
<br>
I did say that when someone pays a lot of people to map, then that<br>
becomes a large scale edit. Again I didn't say that was always bad --<br>
but I did say that the company needs to be responsible for making the<br>
problems that could happen not happen actually. I really don't<br>
understand why you consider that to be so offensive.<br>
<br>
> This is all AL are doing, completing the final quarter of a mile of<br>
> their journey in areas not easily accessible to the general public.<br>
> It is *not* a mechanical* edit, but taken from on the ground surveys<br>
> using GPS, in *exactly* the same way many voluntary contributors map.<br>
<br>
Are you associated with AL in any way? I'm guessing not, but your<br>
reaction to pointing out a structural conflict of interest is remarkably<br>
strong.<br>
<br>
> Please don;t assume, go on the evidence of the contributions. I<br>
> believe they're improving the quality of the OSM database.<br>
<br>
My memory of which paid editor did which is blurred, and I think it<br>
wasn't amazon, but in the last year or two I have had to clean up a<br>
number of things where conservation land was touched and local-consenus<br>
tags, put there by local mappers, were removed by far-awy paid mappers.<br>
While I could talk via changeset comment to one paid mapper, another<br>
paid mapper from the same company wwould do something similar; there was<br>
obviously no coordination and no intent to respect local norms and to<br>
interact with the local community.<br>
<br>
This as I see it is part of Paul's point, that a group of people under<br>
common direction has an obligation to cause mistakes (particularly<br>
overwriting mistakes) to be at a much lower level than an individual new<br>
mapper.<br>
<br>
> * Similarly the way 'mechanical edits' are perceived needs to<br>
> change. They should be accesses on *quality*, not quantity.<br>
<br>
I agree with you there - I am not anti mechanical edit, and not anti<br>
import. I do think our requirements to document and review are good<br>
though. I think it makes sense to have similar review of the<br>
instructions to paid mappers.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
talk mailing list<br>
talk@openstreetmap.org<br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>