[Osmf-talk] DWG survey on organized editing
sfkeller at gmail.com
Tue Oct 3 05:59:35 UTC 2017
With such a scale range 0,1,2, the more questions you ask, the more
regulation you will get ;-).
Of course -1 would not mean less than normal mappers, but no regulation.
I did not realize that it's already decided to add some.
I don't want to have a dialectic debate; just wanted to give back some
"free remarks" since there was no possibility at the end of the
Now, I hope that we won't get not too much regulation (Wikipedia p.ex.
got overregulated over time) - and I'm still confident.
2017-10-03 2:11 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:
> On 02.10.2017 19:48, Stefan Keller wrote:
>> Frederik asked to express what I meant by bias. But since the survey
>> is closed (for me) it's difficult to cite the questions. So let me try
>> to exemplify like this: An unbiased survey about the pros and cons of
>> something (organized mapping in this case) would be like this +1, 0,
>> -1, therefore having an affirmative, a neutral and a declining
>> statement. A biased survey would ask questions like this 0, -1, -2.
> As Christoph already said, this is difficult to follow. We're talking
> about a policy regulating organised editing. The minimum we can have is
> "no policy", meaning that people doing organised editing are bound by
> the exact same rules as everyone else. In hypothetical survey question
> this wold mean:
> 0 - same as everyone else
> 1 - a little more regulation
> 2 - much more regulation
> The option "-1" - "people doing organised editing should be bound to
> *less* rules than normal mappers" - is not on the table, and if we *had*
> added such a reply option it would surely have been perceived as a joke!
> Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
More information about the osmf-talk