[Osmf-talk] osmf-talk Digest, Vol 40, Issue 13
shfeldman at gmail.com
Mon Sep 24 12:08:31 UTC 2012
It might be worth linking up with Alex re the Knight Foundation investment/grant in/to MapBox. They might benefit from any improved understanding we gather as to why people sign up and then don't contribute much (confession, I am one of them - you can mail me)
On 24 Sep 2012, at 11:43, osmf-talk-request at openstreetmap.org wrote:
> Send osmf-talk mailing list submissions to
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> osmf-talk-request at openstreetmap.org
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> osmf-talk-owner at openstreetmap.org
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of osmf-talk digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. Proposal: Welcome Wagon Working Group (Richard Weait)
> 2. Re: Proposal: Welcome Wagon Working Group (Christian Quest)
> 3. Re: Proposal: Welcome Wagon Working Group (Ragnvald at mindland.com)
> 4. Re: Proposal: Welcome Wagon Working Group (Mark Iliffe)
> 5. Re: Proposal: Welcome Wagon Working Group (Richard Weait)
> 6. Re: Proposal: Welcome Wagon Working Group (Kate Chapman)
> 7. Re: Proposal: Welcome Wagon Working Group (Jorge Gustavo Rocha)
> From: Richard Weait <richard at weait.com>
> Date: 23 September 2012 17:59:57 GMT+01:00
> To: osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Osmf-talk] Proposal: Welcome Wagon Working Group
> Dear All,
> I would like to suggest a "Welcome Wagon" Working Group. An OSMF
> Working Group dedicated to learning, understanding and promoting best
> practices relating to new mappers. In this email I outline my
> "vision" for this potential Working Group. I seek your comments,
> participation and ultimately, community and Foundation approval to
> Many OSM accounts are created but never used to contribute data to
> OpenStreetMap. Many more accounts contribute a single changeset and
> are not used again. It seems logical, though it is unsupported by
> data at this time, to suggest that "more mappers, mapping more often,
> is better for the OSM project and data set." It seems likely, though
> again, unsupported by data, that these many new accounts are an
> excellent group to study, with a goal of creating more and better
> Test, record and learn what works best to encourage responsible
> mapping in new mappers. Test, record and learn what non-mapping
> social interactions improve mappers and mapping.
> Tasks of the WWWG are largely To Be Determined. An example is,
> "Contact a percentage of new mappers with one of a series of
> semi-custom emails. measure the responses and differential responses
> between the semi-custom emails and the mappers who were not contacted.
> There are many unanswered questions, and questions that have been
> answered through experience but without hard data. WWWG might be the
> way to answer questions like, "For what reasons are n% accounts never
> used? What percentage of mappers are frustrated by their first
> attempt at mapping and leave the project? What series of tasks or
> goals provide the easiest learning curve to new mappers? Are there
> different types of mappers? If so, what are the differences? How do
> we recognize them? How do we assist them in becoming reaching their
> Working Group vs. Community
> Some aspects of new user welcome and guidance are already ably
> executed by individuals in the wider OSM community. This should
> continue. I suggest that some aspects of new user welcome and
> guidance are better suited to a formal OSMF Working Group. i see the
> benefits of a Working Group as:
> Coordination - by using a uniform procedure and tools, a larger corpus
> of response data can be collected and analyzed.
> Institutional memory - individual community members who welcome others
> may know what works and what does not, but that information is not
> necessarily shared in the form of project wide best practices.
> Privacy - While initial work may be performed using only public
> information, the group may find that sensitive data provides
> additional insights. This data can only be accessed and evaluated
> within the terms of OSMF privacy policies.
> Efficiency - If tools are developed to assist in this research, having
> the unified tools available within the working group is an advantage.
> WWWG vs. other WGs
> There is a small amount of overlap in interest between this proposed
> WWWG and other Working Groups. WWWG is primarily a communication
> function, but to a more-restricted audience than the mandate of the
> Communication Working Group. I don't see and exact match in
> responsibilities and so I suggest that this be a new group, rather
> than an additional task for an existing group.
> Next steps
> I hope that this email will garner some measure of support in the form
> of "that sounds good", and / or "perhaps this idea can be included"
> and / or "yes, somebody should definitely do this" responses. Even
> better would be responses in the form of "Yes, I want to do some
> specific tasks in this area" and / or "We are doing similar things in
> our sub-community and want to participate on a broader scale".
> So, let's hear it. What do you think?
> Best regards and happy mapping,
>  Welcome Wagon is / was a business in USA and Canada from the
> 1920s. It greeted new home owners with samples, coupons and
> advertisements for local participating businesses.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_Wagon I'm not suggesting that
> OSMF start such a business. I'm suggesting that we learn the best way
> to welcome new users, then eventually, make recommendations to do a
> better job of welcoming new users.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk