[OSM-talk] Organizational mapping policy

[Johan C]

<.... that conclusion is wrong because even if we were to
implement a measure that you have no clear picture of, it could still
solve a problem ...>

Even when shooting with hail one might miss the target :-)

<Do you simply think that this additional transparency is "not proven to
be necessary" and you are against any rule that is not proven to be
necessary, or do you see an outright downside to transparency ("if we
were to require this disclosure then there would be less good mapping"
or so)?>

Transparancy could be an explicit part of our core values ( draft:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Future#Core_values ). But in my
opinion these would apply to any mapper regardless if they are paid for
mapping or not. I would for example prefer a paid mapper who is willing to
communicate (aspect of respect) over an unpaid mapper who is not open to
communicate to other mappers. I experience the latter too often, which does
hurt the data quality. Thát is a problem.




2014-06-19 11:11 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:

> Hi,
>
> On 06/19/2014 12:26 AM, Johan C wrote:
> > Since there is still no clear picture on the exact nature of the
> > (potential) problem for OSM
>
> The problem that Wikipedia tries to solve is a lack of transparency;
> they want to make sure that, where compensation is involved, the
> potential motives of contributors are out in the open.
>
> They are not saying that it is bad to be paid for editing Wikipedia; nor
> are they saying that you have to request permission for paid Wikipedia
> editing. They just want the larger community, who might come to judge
> whether an edit has been made in good faith, to know the important facts.
>
> I think it was you who invoked comparisons to political processes and
> systems recently; you might compare this to rules that exist in many
> countries where members of parliament have to disclose any extra income
> they receive from other jobs. A member of parliament doesn't have to ask
> for permission if they earn money on the side but they have to disclose
> it, and the public can then decide whether they find this totally ok, or
> whether they believe that this flow of money could interfere with that
> person's contribution to parliament.
>
> I think that a similar transparency policy - disclose if you map for
> compensation - would make sense in OSM as well. (I also think - but that
> is more of a practical matter - that it would in some cases be very
> helpful to know that a group of seemingly separate accounts are actually
> controlled by the same corporate entity.)
>
> > it's indeed very wise not to implement a
> > solution, because logically that solution wouldn't solve the (potential)
> > problem.
>
> First of all, that conclusion is wrong because even if we were to
> implement a measure that you have no clear picture of, it could still
> solve a problem - on purpose for those who understood it, and
> accidentally for those who didn't understand it.
>
> But as I pointed out earlier, you do not need to wait until your house
> is on fire to solve the fire problem; you can try to *avoid* the problem
> occurring in the first place.
>
> A storm is forecast and your neighbour closes their windows; you are new
> to the area and you would really appreciate a more thorough analysis on
> if and how a storm would affect your house since it is built a little
> different than your neighbour's; maybe you won't even be affected by the
> weather... but would it really be considered "unwise" to close your
> windows?
>
> It has been said by some people in this discussion - and I don't
> remember if that was your particular position as well - that the
> motivation behind an edit is irrelevant to OSM because, in contrast to
> Wikipedia, we only collect verifiable facts, and why bother who enters
> these and why?
>
> I don't subscribe to that point of view, and I will discuss this in a
> different thread.
>
> I do maintain that the additional transparency requirements that
> Wikipedia have introduced would serve OSM well, and I fail to see a
> downside to them.
>
> Do you simply think that this additional transparency is "not proven to
> be necessary" and you are against any rule that is not proven to be
> necessary, or do you see an outright downside to transparency ("if we
> were to require this disclosure then there would be less good mapping"
> or so)?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20140619/0ec7bfa3/attachment-0001.html>