[OSM-talk] Organizational mapping policy
kate at maploser.com
Wed May 14 06:45:08 UTC 2014
I'm curious how HOT projects which are mentioned relate to this. What I
mean is we frequently train other non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
governments and universities in OSM. The proposed guidelines read to me
that people would have to declare that they were being paid to map. A
frequent scenario is we find a group that could benefit from OSM mapping,
for example a civil society group (CSO) and show them how OSM works. They
may then decide to incorporate it into one of their own projects. Some of
the CSOs have a mix of volunteers and staff, so would both types of
participants need to declare what they were doing?
Frequently people are more being paid to provide training than to map
directly in OSM. Is this another scenario?
Should HOT contractors/staff then declare that they are being paid to train
people in OSM? I don't think using separate accounts is a great idea for me
personally I would have no idea when I should use one account versus an
another. I would be perfectly happy to declare that I work for HOT on my
user page, which it already does(1).
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:
> We have more and more organizations and businesses mapping in OSM.
> Multiple organizations have been conducting paid editing in Europe and
> the US. This generally comes to light *after* complaints are made - with
> the company usually not identifying who they are, what their goals are,
> and what they want, beforehand. There have also been difficulties
> determining what has been mapped on behalf of an organization.
> We will likely see more of this type of editing in the future, and while
> not necessarily bad, there are differences between it and normal
> editing. Recent events in a project similar to OpenStreetMap - Wikipedia
> - have demonstrated that the participation of organizations in data
> editing can occasionally lead to misunderstandings or disharmony in the
> project, particularly where a lack of transparency is involved.
> For this reason the DWG is considering if it is necessary to issue
> guidelines for organizational editing. Some previous discussion is at
> There are some activities we do not want to cover in the guidelines
> - Unorganized editing by employees, e.g. a shop owner adding their shop
> or nearby details to the map
> - Editors mapping in response to a contest or similar where the contest
> organizer does not have the power to require them to edit
> - Individuals who, on their own accord, decide to participate in an
> organised effort or challenge, like local mapping parties, Mapathons,
> HOT projects, etc
> Some possible guideline requirements could involve
> - Disclosing those who are directing them (e.g. employers or who they
> are contracting for) on the users page
> - Creating a wiki page with links to user pages of users mapping under
> an organization's direction
> - Requiring those working on broader projects to communicate and get
> feedback from the community before starting
> - Requiring disclosure of proprietary third-party sources used.
> Organizations may have data from third parties that they can legally
> use when contributing to OSM, but aren't able to directly show others
> the data
> - Maintaining separate accounts if doing both personal and organizational
> The extent of editing activities covered is something else that needs to
> be discussed.
> Some types of activities that *could* be covered are
> - Teachers requiring their students to edit OSM as part of a course
> - Consultants editing for multiple clients
> - Being required to edit as part of an employment relationship
> SEO spammers would be covered by this policy, but are not the target.
> They would ignore it, so we'll just end up using the existing tools
> of reverting and blocking.
> Paul Norman
> For the Data Working Group
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk