[OSM-talk] Import guidelines proposal update

[Pierre Béland]

2012-09-20  Frederik Ramm


> However, every once in a while DWG gets a complaint about a particular 
user making lots of edits that are questionable.
> Not outright vandalism 
or edit warring, but something exotic enough to make other mappers in 
the area uneasy.
> The other mappers watch the user in question but it is 
hard to watch him because all his changeset comments are just "small 
fixes". 

> The other mappers try to contact the user but he never replies.

> In
 cases like this, I have occasionally told the mapper in question that 
OSM is a teamwork project, and that he must be a teamplayer
> and 
communicate with his peers, else we cannot use his work even if it is 
good. I have occasionally had to put a block on people like
> that in 
order to get them to reply at all.

This is not only a question of guidelines. And the DWG  role is more of last intervention when the community was not able to discuss with mappers and correct the situation.

The DWG work would be facilitated if communications were developped with local communities and first contacts made by these local communities. 


This would also contribute to develop more experienced and responsible mappers. To my point of view, it is essential to favorize development of local communities, to empower these communities with tools adapted to them.
 
Pierre 



>________________________________
> De : Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
>À : talk at openstreetmap.org 
>Envoyé le : Vendredi 21 septembre 2012 9h40
>Objet : Re: [OSM-talk] Import guidelines proposal update
> 
>Hi,
>
>On 09/21/12 14:12, sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote:
>> No problems, let's discuss. But while we do talk about a future rule, the
>> previous one should (I mean "must") still apply until the new one is ready to
>> replace it.
>
>This is not about "one rule". This is about the whole question of rules and authority.
>
>> No need to say what was the previous rule right ?
>
>You mean the previous rule as in yesterday? Half a year ago? Two years ago? Or back when we had nodes and segments in our data model ;)
>
>The current situation is that DWG does their job as they see fit and defines rules they think are necessary.
>
>For example: We do not have a rule in OSM that says "you must use a changeset comment", and we don't have a rule that says "you must reply when other mappers send you messages". It's good style to do it but there's no rule that you *must*.
>
>Creating rules for these situations would be awkward - it would raise all kinds of questions like "what exactly counts as a reply" and so on. And it would also sound like contributing to OSM was a major problem because there are so many rules.
>
>So we don't have any.
>
>However, every once in a while DWG gets a complaint about a particular user making lots of edits that are questionable. Not outright vandalism or edit warring, but something exotic enough to make other mappers in the area uneasy. The other mappers watch the user in question but it is hard to watch him because all his changeset comments are just "small fixes". The other mappers try to contact the user but he never replies.
>
>In cases like this, I have occasionally told the mapper in question that OSM is a teamwork project, and that he must be a teamplayer and communicate with his peers, else we cannot use his work even if it is good. I have occasionally had to put a block on people like that in order to get them to reply at all.
>
>Now there's no written rule for this. If the guy started a thread on the talk list about "where is it written that you need to respond to emails?????" I would not even be able to point to a wiki page - it's simply something that we take for granted.
>
>The "separate account" rule is just such a rule, that DWG has created to do their job. I will not continue discussing this: As long as DWG have to clean up the mess they will make the rules governing imports and mechanical edits. Exceptions from the rules can be negotiated with DWG in advance if someone thinks they really need one.
>
>I say "as long as..." because the subsidiarity I mentioned in my post is a real possibility; if the French community has a couple of willing and capable people maybe we could experiment with setting up a sub-DWG responsible for France only. Maybe we should just try it out and see if it improves the situation.
>
>Bye
>Frederik
>
>-- Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
-------------- section suivante --------------
Une pi?ce jointe HTML a ?t? nettoy?e...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20120921/947fe5f7/attachment.html>