[Osmf-talk] DWG survey on organized editing
chris_hormann at gmx.de
Wed Oct 18 18:30:28 UTC 2017
On Wednesday 18 October 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> the results are in!
Having a somewhat more in depth view of the detailed results i made two
observations and i hope that independent of the question how
representative participation in the survey was most people can agree
with them being valid observations.
1) It seems that for the first question if and for what kind of
activities a policy is needed there is a clear majority for at least
some regulation across all groups of participants (both regional and
other). Even among those associated with paid mapping only 43 percent
think no policy is needed. I think this supports the board's decision
to act on this matter and to task the DWG with working on a policy.
2) I looked at which of the questions with a gradual answer showed the
largest difference between the affiliation groups - in other words:
where there is the most dissent between those with connection to paid
mapping and those without a connection among the participants.
This is the "OSM-related performance criteria must be disclosed"
question with -0.82 vs. 0.47. I think this is also the question with
the largest variance of votes overall (but i am not completely sure,
have not done the math).
I think this indicates this is a topic where it would be good to look
for a different approach to the subject that might allow satisfying
both sides instead of just having this as a requirement in a policy or
not having it - both of which apparently quite a large number of people
would be dissatisfied with.
More information about the osmf-talk