[Osmf-talk] DWG survey on organized editing

Christoph Hormann chris_hormann at gmx.de
Wed Oct 18 18:30:28 UTC 2017


On Wednesday 18 October 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the results are in!
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/Results_of_Org
>anised_Editing_Survey_2017

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.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/



More information about the osmf-talk mailing list