[Osmf-talk] DWG survey on organized editing

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Wed Oct 18 20:43:50 UTC 2017


On 10/18/2017 08:30 PM, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> 2) I looked at which of the questions with a gradual answer showed the 
> largest difference between the affiliation groups 


> This is the "OSM-related performance criteria must be disclosed" 
> question with -0.82 vs. 0.47. 


> 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

Generally, it is quite possible that those who are affiliated with
organisations that do paid/organised mapping simply have a more
pragmatic view. The outsider might say: "Sure, this should be
disclosed!" - and the insider might say: "Errr I wouldn't even know how
we should do that". It is, for example, possible that in some groups the
individual mappers aren't even told which metrics are applied, if any!

It can be in nobody's interest to implement a policy that doesn't work,
so we'll certainly have to involve those who currently do paid/organised
mapping and ask them: Is this something that would work for you?


Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list