[Osmf-talk] Directed Editing Policy
dale.kunce at gmail.com
Tue Nov 21 04:55:24 UTC 2017
The focus on organized editors is out of sync with the actual needs and
energy of the existing community. I agree that if this could be rephrased
and some changes made that a sensible and needed mapper code of conduct
could come from this. As it is right now the policy doesn't get at the
heart of the perceived problem, puts undo burdens on organized groups,
with every HOT activation in the last 7 years.
What is the actual goal of such a policy? Does the DWG see a problem with
HOT, Missing Maps, corporate editors, SEO editors? Who are you actually
trying to target with this policy? If the target is SEO editors, which I
think is the problem, this policy is way out of whack and won't actually
get to the heart of how we as a community can police them.
HOT, Missing Maps, corporate editors, have all done a lot in the past 3
years to push sensible training, develop better tech tools, and build a
better map, in an open manner. Why write a policy that directly targets the
very groups that are bringing in and training new mappers, spending tons of
time on validation, building better methods to track and engage mappers,
and filling in gaps in the map that over a decade are still blank. Its
because, this policy is written to try and drive existing organized groups
away from OSM by making it burdensome to fulfill all the requirements. HOT
and by extension Missing Maps both have a strong ethics that guide our
mapping (http://www.missingmaps.org/about/). I think these ethics with some
additions to get at the heart of the SEO problem are a better starting
I'm not going to comment on every word in the policy yet, as a more
detailed ground-up rewrite is needed. But one huge glaring error is section
number 3. Section 3 would directly put an end to immediate humanitarian
mapping. HOT and other groups that use OSM for humanitarian mapping needs
would be precluded from editing to assist humanitarians for 14 days. "*Note:
The recommended time for discussion is not less than 14 days.*" This
doesn't make any sense. Why should HOT have to wait 14 days to map, when
the local community is asking for it, when the ability to get more mappers
is the highest, and when its most critical for humanitarian organizations.
If codified this policy would be detrimental to OSM, drive away new
mappers, and hurt local OSM communities. As one of the organizers behind
the largest organized editing groups (HOT and Missing Maps), I'm happy to
sit directly with the DWG to help craft a more sensible policy.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
>> the DWG has prepared a policy on "Directed Editing" (former working
>> title "Organised Editing Policy"). Read it here:
>> The policy picks up (but doesn't slavishly follow) the results of our
>> survey, where it became obvious that transparency and communications are
>> what mappers find most important about organised mapping efforts. The
>> policy replaces the somewhat fuzzy terms of "paid" and "organised"
>> editing with the concept of "directed editing", which is essentially
>> when you're required to edit OSM (because of work, a school assignment
>> etc) and/or when you're told by others exactly what and how to map.
>> The DWG is interested in feedback on this proposal. Are you currently
>> involved in some form of editing that would be covered by the policy?
>> Does the policy present an unnecessary obstacle for some activities? If
>> you have witnessed organised mapping efforts that caused problems -
>> would these problems have been avoided if people had adhered to the
>> proposed policy?
> This looks like a rather burdensome policy for those that want to run a
> small mapping party to energize the local OSM community. If I decide to
> have a few people over to a local community center to collect and add data
> to OSM, am I required to generate a wiki page every time? How will the DWG
> enforce this policy? How will the DWG distinguish between directed and
> undirected mapping activity? It seems that DWG is trying to clamp down on
> what it sees as bad behavior from commercial entities by writing a policy
> that also requires more from the most important OSM volunteer participants.
> More generally: this policy seems backwards to me. Shouldn't these sort of
> recommendations and restrictions on behavior be reworded into a "mapper
> code of conduct"? The talk list has been rife with claims of "unwritten
> rules" lately – perhaps we should write them down and point to them as a
> positive affirmation of how we want our community to behave.
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
sent from my mobile device
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk