[Osmf-talk] Organized Editing Best Practice
rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com
Tue Dec 12 17:54:42 UTC 2017
>And of course, your document primarily reflects the point of view of
organizations interested in performing organized edits.
Depending on your point of view this could be a positive or a negative. In
regulated businesses the regulator (government) does not always step in
with legislation, and instead sends a warning to the businesses to "sort it
out amongst yourself else we will regulate". This has the potential
advantage of getting good solutions with good buy-in but still allowing
legislation to be brought in at a later date if needed.
This two stage approach seems best when we are less certain about the right
cause of action, have not completed a full impact assessment, or want to
avoid heavy handed approaches.
For this particular case I think the last point (i.e. wanting / not wanting
such a heavy handed approach) is of most relevance here. I shared my view
in the past that I will be upset if we put people off mapping because
someone shakes a policy in their face after a mistake is made rather than
the opposite - trying to support them with welcoming help.
I am on the advisory board as UK local chapter rep and hear a mixture of
views from UK mappers. Some will have a stronger view and others prefer no
policy at all. We (the chapter) therefore believe this two stage option* is
a good compromise and allows us to add more policy at a later stage if
(*: Best practices on edits with direct benefits, followed with
stronger/wider policies if needed)
For example, the "direct rewards" is intentional here as we feel it would
solve many of the problems whilst still allowing freedom in other groups.
If at a later date we decide that these other groups need a policy then one
can be introduced.
So in summary, the advisory board put this out (albeit late as we are still
a new group getting used to working together) to promote discussion. The
goal is to continue the discussion and provide input in to the OSMF
P.s. this is not a status quo for all members - they are new best practices
developed recently. Of course some members will be ahead of others in
implementing these best practices in their work.
On 12 Dec 2017 4:42 p.m., "Tobias Knerr" <osm at tobias-knerr.de> wrote:
On 11.12.2017 20:00, Marc Prioleau wrote:
Hi, it's encouraging that there seem to already be some recognized best
practices regarding organized imports among the corporate members
represented in the Advisory Board. As a summary of the status quo for
organized editing, the document can be valuable input.
Because you explicitly reference the DWG's recent efforts towards a
Directed Editing Policy in your mail, though, I'd like to point out that
there's a difference in scope: Your document limits itself to activities
for which people receive direct rewards – monetary or otherwise –,
whereas the DWG's proposed policy is, with good reason, written to be
more broadly applicable.
And of course, your document primarily reflects the point of view of
organizations interested in performing organized edits. As we've seen
from the DWG's survey this year, there's a notable difference between
that perspective on the one hand and the hopes of the community of
non-organized mappers on the other. As such, the DWG's text will
necessarily need to go beyond what's already current practice (i.e. the
items listed in your document) to find a solution that also meets the
My suggestions back then notwithstanding, the DWG's recent proposal
already achieved that balance quite well. So as long as there are no
drastic changes in the final version, I'm optimistic for the outcome of
the process. Still, I thought it made sense to point out these
distinctions, given the overlap between the documents and the somewhat
osmf-talk mailing list
osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk