[Osmf-talk] Directed Editing Policy

Stefan Keller sfkeller at gmail.com
Tue Nov 21 20:19:21 UTC 2017


Dear all,

I was one of the first having expressed my scepticism about the
survey... Now, I'm realizing that it's time for a policy -  especially
also thanks to Freds patient comments.

Looking at the current draft Directed Editing Policy, I see that the
DWG made a good job!

Personally, I'm somehow affected by this since I'm organizing Mapping
Parties sporadically [1] among others. I'm also engaged little bit in
Tourism like Helge and I'd like to understand his reservations
(actually I'm open to have a phone call about this and other stuff).

Like Nils, I'd like to thank the DWG and won't trash the draft nor start over.

I have the following feedback to the DWG mainly referring to "A.
Duties of the Director" (numbering by myself) as follows:

> * (1) any non-standard tools and data sources used,
> * (2) the executing organisation
> * (3) a way to contact the director
* ...
> * (4) the participating people

Ad (1) mentions two different things and I'd like to point to the fact
that a director can't be made fully responsible what tools and data
sources people use. This is my suggestion:

> * the non-standard tools and unusual data sources used to the best of his knowledge,

Ad (2): I'm not sure if it always makes sense to name an organization.
I think (3) is enough. I suggest to make it "should" or delete this
entirely.

Ad (4): Be aware that in many situations the real full names of people
often remain unknown, and - more important - I would be cautious to
require to publicly list people's full names. Since users use hashtags
in their changesets we have a reference at hand. So I'd suggest to
make it "should" and hope e.g. OSM nicknames are Ok too.

Yours, Stefan


[1] https://giswiki.hsr.ch/8._Micro_Mapping_Party_Rapperswil_2017

2017-11-21 21:07 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch>:
> Am 21.11.2017 um 18:41 schrieb 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:
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>



More information about the osmf-talk mailing list