[Osmf-talk] DWG survey on organized editing

Joseph Reeves iknowjoseph at gmail.com
Wed Oct 18 10:19:00 UTC 2017

Hi Heather, all,

I agree with your points. Simon has commented that:

The survey is going to be skewed in many ways for example by higher
participation from people associated with organisations with a vested
interest in paid/organized editing. I don't really think anybody was even
remotely assuming that this was going to be representative (doing a
representative survey would face many many challenges in any case), but
more simply a rough gathering of sentiment on the issue. Given that, I
think we can live with the slight advantage we've given to English speakers.

Which, sadly, I think, explains a lot of what you've highlighted: It was
never going to be representative. Simon was wrong, however: There was no
higher participation from people associated with paid mapping (15% of
respondents), or people doing organised mapping (26%). This vast
majority of participants in this survey did not partake in organised
mapping: It's their unrepresentative sentiment we see.

The state of the "slight advantage we've given to English speakers" has
been massively underestimated: The advantage has been overwhelming. Not
only this, we've given a huge advantage to English speaking *mappers, *
although the results of the survey largely deals with *map data* in other
parts of the world. So although we now know that English speaking mappers
want (when asked to participate in a survey designed to bolster the views
of the DWG), we have learnt nothing about what local map *users* want.

My conclusion was that, when asking a group of mappers, largely uninvolved
in paid or organised mapping, "63% said that a policy should apply to
both". I'm not sure how useful this is.

The whole thing, I think, is completely unrepresentative of the global OSM

Best, Joseph

On 18 October 2017 at 10:06, Heather Leson <heatherleson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
> I recommend that we have a subsequent and more inclusive plan for any
> policy discussion. It is very disturbing to see such a low contribution
> from Asia and Africa, where the majority of the world lives. If that is in
> line with OSMF membership, then this is also something that needs work.
> Maybe the conversation show expand to reach more people via other channels
> like Weekly OSM, Facebook (where the majority of Asia communicates) etc.
> and more languages
> Thank you,
> Heather
> Regional distribution
> We also did an analysis by continent. We had 417 results from Europe
> (which for our purpose includes Russia), 187 from North America, *35 from
> Asia*, 15 from Australia and Oceania, 13 from South America, and *1 from
> Africa*. (We used the submission IP number to determine the continent
> where people hadn't given their country.) We're publishing the results for
> all continents except Africa (where the one contributor is too easy to
> de-anonymise), however South America and Australia/Oceania have too few
> submissions to draw any conclusions there. Overall, Europe is more in
> favour of regulation than North America and Asia (11% in Europe say no
> policy is needed, while 31% and 30% say so in North America and Asia,
> respectively). This is, however, likely to be a reflection of where the
> paid/organised mapping organisations are. Only 6% of respondents in Europe
> are affiliated with an organisation that does paid mapping, but 32% in
> North America and 31% in Asia are; only 16% of respondents in Europe are
> affiliated with an organisation that does other organised mapping, but 47%
> in North America and 37% in Asia are.
> Heather Leson
> heatherleson at gmail.com
> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
> Blog: textontechs.com
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> the results are in!
>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/Resul
>> ts_of_Organised_Editing_Survey_2017
>> Thank you everyone who participated.
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171018/caa1cbf5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list