[Osmf-talk] DWG survey on organized editing
richlv at nakts.net
Thu Oct 19 09:05:49 UTC 2017
On 2017.10.18. 23:43, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 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!
i'd like to suggest assuming good faith and simple approaches.
also, thank you a lot Frederik for the patience to explain things.
people, please do not jump on the board or this survey - sure, it could
have been improved here or there, but it was a good survey. the
complaints about regions, languages and whatnot seem to be more like
"don't do anything".
as for the case Frederik mentioned where individual mappers don't know
about metrics, that's easy - "no metrics" is disclosed :)
it is important to remember that this topic has not been caused by osm
hating organised mappers - quite the opposite, we love you guys & gals,
we love your involvement and work to improve the map.
this topic has been caused by some cases where it has not gone as well
as one could hope for. problems caused by organised mappers, no response
to messages, no disclosure of affiliation.
these cases are minority, i believe - but they make all organised
mapping look suspicious. i'd say good-faith organised mappers should
welcome some basic guidelines, as it will make them look better.
what are the alternatives ?
* all organised mapping is viewed as suspect, personal insults common
* organisations are treated as people - if one is found to be
detrimental, whole org is blocked
* organisations are publicly shamed for detrimental input - like
the first one is what we are trending towards.
the second one would be objected to by companies, although this is
happening in other areas - if an employee is doing bad things, company
is held responsible. still, it might be too harsh here. if one division
is doing great work, while another is doing bad things, we wouldn't want
to punish the first one.
and the last one is where the trend from the first one will eventually
you, the company people. you are awesome. but there are these bad
company people out there. if you don't step forward with a support for
the policies, your name will end up on some blog, blamed for terrible
things happening to osm. it might be a misunderstanding or a mistake,
but as you did not disclose employees, criteria etc, your name will show
up in that rant.
remember that time when google was vandalising openstreetmap ?
> 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?
More information about the osmf-talk