[Osmf-talk] Directed Editing Policy

[Helge Fahrnberger]

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.

The
​ proposed​
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.)

Best, Helge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20171121/ab9261ca/attachment.html>