[Osmf-talk] Directed Editing Policy

Nils Larsen nils.larsen at posteo.de
Tue Nov 21 19:07:15 UTC 2017


Dear all,
it's probably my first time writing here although I've been following the discussions for years.

I speak out my support for the work done by the board and the DWG on this topic in their sparetime. Thank you!
 
I feel it is necessary to write this to encourage them to keep on.  I'm thinking of the many very critical comments which tend to be little constructive, but rather tireing and discouraging.

No, let's not trash the draft and let's not start over. For the critics: Let's suggest different wordings where necessary instead of just being against.

No, let's not change the word count of "must" in favour of "welcome" just for the sake of it. A policy should regulate. There are other ways to invite, support, welcome certain mapping behaviour.

Dear fellow members, please try to be nice to each other - also while discussing diverging views.

Regards, Nils

On November 21, 2017 6:41:48 PM GMT+01:00, Helge Fahrnberger <helge at toursprung.com> wrote:
>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
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>osmf-talk mailing list
>osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20171121/51f8755c/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list