[Osmf-talk] DWG survey on organized editing

Christoph Hormann chris_hormann at gmx.de
Thu Oct 19 09:47:01 UTC 2017

On Wednesday 18 October 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 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!

Yes, one element on the side of the individual mappers is likely also 
simply curiousity - people are interested in knowing the performance 
metrics used, they don't really need a good reason for that.  And 
people with a professional point of view likely often think this is 
naturally the decision of the company's management and not something 
you can require them to disclose.

IIRC you were saying previously you intended to approach organizations 
doing paid/organized mapping for input on the whole matter.  Maybe this 
would be a good point to ask about - what kind of performance metrics 
they have made good experience with and which seem to be less useful.  
This - together with community input about what we consider necessary 
to give incentives to good quality mapping - could be the basis of 
establishing a good practice framework - which might be more effective 
in this case than a vague obligation to disclose (which could quickly 
turn into an exercise in disclosing everything without actually 
disclosing anything).

Christoph Hormann

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list