[OSM-talk] Organizational mapping policy
chris_hormann at gmx.de
Wed May 14 08:47:37 UTC 2014
On Wednesday 14 May 2014, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Personally, I think that a policy like that should cover any kind of
> (for lack of better word) "directed" mapping, where a mapper doesn't
> act on their own accord (because they want to) but on someone else's
> (because they're told to).
> The boundary is of course blurry - if you report for duty at your
> local CSO, on your own accord, because you want to make the work a
> better place, and then are told that this week's project is fixing
> TIGER roads in rural Pennsylvania - are you "directed"?
Exactly. It seems to me the distinction between those activities you
specifically do not want to regulate and those you do want to cover is
The core question seems to me what exactly the aim of such a policy is.
If it is aimed at companies who have people edit in OSM the policy
should define its scope in terms of these companies, not in terms of
the editing activities they endorse. One possible point is that
organizations developing certain rules for mapping on their own (like
regarding tagging or use of geometries to represent certain things) and
instruct others to use these rules they are required to
discuss/document these with the community first. Such policy would be
independent of how exactly people are instructed by the organization -
if they are paid or just volunteers.
If on the other hand the editing activities themselves are considered
the primary issue the question is what aspect of them is considered to
be the problem and this should make the core of the definition. Based
on the issues in Wikipedia Paul refers to for example the possible
conflicts of interest might be the main issue and if that is the case
it might be best to require any mapper to disclose possible conflicts
of interest on their user page.
The use of proprietary third-party sources is for example an issue not
limited to organizational mapping at all, it is a frequent occurence
that people use proprietary data they have access to (for example as
part of their work but without their employer being involved) as a
mapping source - such sources should probably be required to be
disclosed even if the mapping itself is a totally private activity.
More information about the talk