[Osmf-talk] DWG survey on organized editing

Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski me at komzpa.net
Mon Oct 2 15:11:17 UTC 2017


I also feel bias in the survey, I'll try to express it:

I am participating in OSM for a rather long time. After some time, it
became clear that my knowledge lets me choose the jobs that involve OSM,
and bring OSM into them.

>From time to time I'm getting my hands on some private dataset that is not
easy to publish, but easy to validate OSM against. In that case I'm writing
something and go hunting issues in OSM. Sometimes I ask my colleagues to
join me in that.

I do it in work time. I get money for that time. I am not asked by anyone
to perform edits, it's just that I'm only one who gets access to private
dataset (say, traces or imagery) and can transform it into maps, that can
also be useful for company - which is why they are fine with me doing it.

I am not a bot, and you can communicate with me as with usual mapper - I'm
mapping myself and handling all the discussions as usual. But such a
questionnaire as in the discussion makes me feel like I am doing something
bad editing the map in my work time.

I think that the actual issue that should be inspected is "uncontactable
mappers" - and this way you find out that they may be either groups ones
that don't bother to ever look at messages, or, say, users of some mobile
app that can't display private messages sent to user due to API limitations.

сб, 30 сент. 2017 г. в 13:11, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:

> Hi,
>
> On 09/30/2017 12:32 AM, Stefan Keller wrote:
> > I just completed the survey and found that these questions are
> > slightly biased against paid and organized editing. And what I missed
> > most was a final remark in free text.
>
> The survey is not the end-all that somehow leads to a policy
> automatically; we'll have to evaluate it and let the results inform our
> further steps.
>
> One intended result of the survey was to further discussion on the
> subject. Discussion isn't helped much if people type stuff into a free
> text field at the end; if they want to send us a private message there
> are other channels. Ideally, we'd hope to see a public discussion here
> or in other suitable forums.
>
> Was there a particular question that made you feel there's a "bias
> against" organised editing?
>
> > IMHO there's nothing really fundamentally wrong with paid or organized
> > editing, unless it's share grows substantially, since it's AFAIK not
> > "damaging" more than first time mappers.
>
> In case this hasn't become clear, nobody intends to stop or reduce paid
> or other organised editing; we simply want to put up a few rules that
> such editing has to conform to.
>
> > I'm sometimes organizing mapping parties and instructing interns to do
> > targeted mapping. For these activities, they usually disclaim that
> > they're doing aka mandated work just by using comments or
> > hashtags. That's something which could be a simple requirement also for
> > paid mapping.
>
> Sure.
>
> > P.S. To me, there's for example much more evidence that SEO or plain
> > self-advertisement gets problematic in near future - which is showing
> > up typically just as wrong edits. I expect that a policy for paid and
> > organized editing won't prevent that.
>
> Well most SEO stuff is paid mapping. A policy would not automatically
> stop that, but if, for example, the policy were to explicitly request
> that paid mapping is recognizable as such then it becomes obvious more
> quickly whether someone wants to work with us or against us.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171002/8dc5c7fb/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list