[Osmf-talk] Change to WMF Terms of Use: Requirements for disclosure

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 06/17/2014 11:06 PM, Emilie Laffray wrote:
> Ultimately, map data is pretty much fact and whether it exists or not is
> a binary statement.

I took the liberty to quote and answer this in a discussion on the talk
list, here

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-June/070055.html

In fact (to those who started this thread and are not on talk), there
has been a discussion on talk which started with DWG requesting input on
a potential policy on what we called "organizational mapping", here

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-May/069772.html

Personally I am of the opinion that it would be good to have rules that
ensure transparency is maintained in cases where people map on behalf of
others (whether they are employed, contracted, or part of a learning
course) - just so that everyone can see that here's a group of people
working on a common agenda. I don't think it would be an undue obstacle
to anyone. However - for reasons that I did not fully understand[*] -
the discussion on the talk list was relatively controversial, with a
couple of people insisting that we have to wait until our house is on
fire before we are allowed to think about fire safety ;)

Bye
Frederik

[*] I believe there might have been a misunderstanding and people who
regularly instruct larger groups of others to map, like people teaching
courses or HOT, felt "targeted" in some way.

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"