[Osmf-talk] Directed Editing Policy

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Tue Nov 21 20:07:46 UTC 2017


Am 21.11.2017 um 18:41 schrieb Helge Fahrnberger:
>
>
> 2017-11-21 10:33 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org
> <mailto: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:

I see nothing in the proposed policy that would deter parties with such
data in the slightest (definitely not a  couple of minutes of minimal
red tape) The problems with all three examples wrt OSM lie  elsewhere,
and yes, likely both your customers and your expectations would be
difficult to meet, but that has all to do with the nature of OSM, not
with the policy at hand.

Simon
 
>
>
> 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/20171121/9bab7844/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20171121/9bab7844/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list