[OSM-talk] Revert requests in general

[Ben Last]

On 5 August 2010 14:44, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> You're trying to remove two "barriers" at the same time, both quite
> unrelated:
> 1. The barrier of users having to sign up to OSM;
> 2. The barrier of a (supposedly) complicated editing process.
>
An interesting take on it :)  But I disagree that these are not related.
 Right now, you need to do 1 in order to do *any* edits, so it's not
negotiable.  So you can't implement a better editor without users facing the
barrier of signup.  We could build a better editor for users *who are
already signed up with OSM*, but that's a very small subset of the user
population we're aimed at, and I'm not sure that most OSM users want a
simpler editor.

Think of it as a use case; someone is happily using NearMap and finds that a
street they know well isn't named (this happens a *lot*).  All they want is
to be able to quickly fix that.  At that point in time, from their point of
view, given that this is almost certainly a side-issue to whatever they're
trying to do, the signup barrier is a *really big deal*.  They don't care
about OSM, they don't care about mapping, they don't want to join an OSM
community.  We have a small window of opportunity to have them help out
before they lose interest and motivation.  So our starting point is that it
has to be as easy as possible for them to contribute.


> If we at OSM had an editor available that was easier than everything else
> we can offer, we'd surely have put it up on the web site some time ago - but
> we don't have one. So your effort and money on that front are surely
> welcome.
>
Actually... I'm not sure you would :)  My reasoning is thus; OSM members are
interested in mapping, and relish the power of JOSM or Potlatch (I do
myself).  You don't want a simpler editor, you want one that helps you do
OSM mapping.  The motivations and interests of the "average user" community
are very different, and that drives the definition of "easier".


> I think the problem with your suggestion is that you're offering your help
> only in the form of a package (1+2).

That's true; we do have valid reasons for doing that (well, we think they're
valid).  We can't solve 1, because we don't run the OSM website, nor is
there a defined way in which we can help users sign up with some degree of
assurance that someone won't rework openstreetmap.org and break integration
with our site.  We can do something to solve 2, but as expressed above, we
see 1 as a big barrier.  If, as you suggest, there were a way to use openid
so that the OSM site could authenticate against our user database (or any
other openid one), then it wouldn't even be an issue; we'd just submit edits
with openid authentication.  Or build a Facebook app so that both OSM and
NearMap could let a user sign in with their Facebook credentials :)  I can
hear some people cringing, but there's a much bigger percentage of our users
who are on Facebook than are on OSM.


> Yes there would be an added burden for your users if you dropped "1", but
> would that really be such a problem? One signup page, one E-Mail
> confirmation, and then click "ok" for the OAuth page. How often does the
> modern Internet user do that every day?
>
Given enough motivation, sure, people will sign up.  But if the only reason
for signing up is to fix something that they think should be right in the
first place... not so much.


> If you were to decide to actually send your users to create an account with
> OSM, you'd also be saving time because you would no longer have to be the
> middle man in community communication. And if this is a factor for you, you
> could still retain whatever rights you want on the content submitted by the
> user, by way of their agreement with NearMap.

We save ourselves time at the expense of making it more work for our users.
 Not really what we want to do.  We're not interested in rights in the edits
(in fact, we have some rights anyway because those edits are derived from
our PhotoMaps and therefore we must be able to use them under CC-BY-SA).
 The primary motivation here is to make the OSM data more usable, as fast as
possible.

But having said that, if the response from OSM is "you need to make your
users sign up", then maybe we have no choice and we'll have to rework what
we've built.  The problem I have right now is that I see conflicting advice
from people who are all part of the OSM community - there is no single
answer here.

Cheers
b

-- 
Ben Last
Development Manager (HyperWeb)
NearMap Pty Ltd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100805/5bd9823e/attachment.html>