[Osmf-talk] Directed Editing Policy
helge at toursprung.com
Tue Nov 21 17:41:48 UTC 2017
2017-11-21 10:33 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:
> Could you give an example (even if hypothetical) of an activity that you
> believe is discouraged by the policy, but that we should encourage instead?
Sure! As I wrote in a previous thread in October:
Three recent real world examples from our customers:
1. The tourism board of a German bundesland uses OSM for bicycle routing
online and in apps, plus for their maps. They collected truckloads of local
feedback of mapping errors and they have a) access to public shape files
(and the permission to use them in OSM) and b) the money and motivation to
pay someone to improve OSM accordingly. (If there was a bounty marketplace
they would have happily set up a €€€ bounty for reviewing and importing
their data and/or checking and fixing the bugs they reported.)
2. A couple of big ski resorts in the alps use OSM for their ski routing
and need 100% correct and routable (!) ski lifts and pistes. Their geodata
is pristine - they built those lifts and pistes after all.
3. A big private tourism organisation has spent a lot of money to
properly map all hiking routes in a large part of the Alpes. Now they
realise that keeping that data up to date is too expensive and they want to
donate the data to OSM, so somebody else keeps it up to date for
them. Their data is currently still much better than what we
find on OSM.
I believe these types of very valuable "directed" edits need a red carpet.
Yes, that may include
instructions / policies, but in a very encouraging and helpful way.
policy contains the word "must" eleven times - and not a single instance of
"welcome". The tone is not encouraging. (And I believe it will fail to
discourage any SEO mapper or other mappers with bad intentions.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk