[Osmf-talk] DWG survey on organized editing

Christoph Hormann chris_hormann at gmx.de
Mon Oct 2 19:11:43 UTC 2017

On Monday 02 October 2017, Stefan Keller wrote:
> I just remember e.g. choices something like "requires documented
> instructions" (-1) and "requires full real name" (-2).

The questions you refer to are probably:

"Instructions to the paid/organised team must be available for 
inspection by the mapping community."

"A paid/organised mapper must disclose their identity (real name)."

To be answered with one of:

Strongly agree,	Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly disagree, No answer

I guess you could reverse the statements and make them:

"Paid/organised teams may receive private instructions on how to map 
things without these being made known to the mapping community."

"A paid/organised mapper may map under a pseudonym and is not obliged to 
disclose their identity (real name)."

But i don't think this would be any better and it would be pretty 
confusing.  Keep in mind this is a survey on a possible policy 
*regulating* organized editing, it is therefore logical that ideas you 
are asked to agree or disagree with are formulated as regulating 
statements.  So in a way - and to use your original image - such a 
survey is inherently biased because it will evaluate a spectrum of 
opinions somewhere between 0 (no regulation at all) and 2 (strict 
regulation of any organized activity).  I am not sure how to extend 
this to a '-2' - maybe require OSM community members to do a certain 
percentage of their mapping work for organized editing stakeholders?

How would you ask for the participant's opinion on a real name 

Christoph Hormann

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list