[Osmf-talk] Directed Editing Policy
frederik at remote.org
Tue Nov 21 08:50:18 UTC 2017
On 21.11.2017 05:55, Dale Kunce wrote:
> 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?
Can we perhaps not use the word "target", it sounds as if we are the
military and we want to shoot something down.
If this policy "applies to" an activity, it doesn't mean that this
activity needs to stop; it just means that this is an activity that
needs just a little more care than everyday mapping. As you correctly
say, HOT already have their own guidelines in place that are aimed at
ensuring the same thing!
This policy will "apply to" some activities that HOT does, but that
doesn't mean these activities are bad, or unethical, or unwanted, or
anything like that. In fact, most of what the policy requests, is
already done by HOT for their activities today. Of course, the Wiki page
we expect people to create for an activity isn't currently created by
HOT because nobody asked them to and they have their own way of
recording activities - but what is one extra wiki page?
Could you explain more why you believe that current HOT (or
MissingMaps...) activities contrast with the proposed policy? Because I
think this list will be extremely short, and consist mainly of
technicalities that could be implemented with minimal extra burden.
> 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.
In writing this, you claim that there is an intention on the part of DWG
or OSMF to drive existing organised groups away. I would hope that after
sleeping over it, you will be able to retract that claim because it is
unfair, unhelpful, and untrue.
> 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.
Dale, please understand that nobody is "targeting" you here, or
inventing things to "drive you away". Your reaction is the reaction of
someone who has been attacked, and who sees only attack in every single
sentence. This is not conductive to discussion. If you could take the
time and read the document again, this time not in "I am under attack!"
mode, you will see that great care has been taken already to allow for
Firstly, section A.3 of which you speak is a "SHOULD" section. The
wording convention we use says that "SHOULD" means something you have to
do unless there's a good reason not to, and if there is such reason, you
will have to explain that. In your concrete example of an urgent
humanitarian situation, it would be totally covered by the policy to say
"sorry, no time for discussion because of emergency". Also, just one
line after the 14-day recommendation given, the proposed policy stresses
that you do not have to wait for an OK from the community to start
> 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.
We are definitely interested in feedback from HOT/MM and other similar
organisations (in fact I have directly reached out to our contacts on
the HOT board about this even before posting on osmf-talk). The only
thing I would ask is that you drop your initial reaction of "all this
must be dropped and re-written more sensibly"; a lot of work has already
gone into this policy, and I believe it also reflects what has been
expressed by the community in response to our survey.
If you re-read the policy with a cool head, I'm pretty sure you will see
that only very minor changes/additions to today's HOT/MM activities
would be required (like setting up the Wiki page); and if not - if there
should indeed be areas where you say here's something that the policy
requires but that HOT/MM cannot deliver without creating problems for
them, then we should certainly discuss these points.
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the osmf-talk