[OSM-talk] Organizational mapping policy

[Jóhannes Birgir Jensson]

Because very zelous mappers are the last thing we need?

Just because we can use data to catch out stuff then we hardly need to 
use it to limit the users, it should be fine to use the data to put the 
name on a watch list, making it easier to revert if edits are found to 
be harmful (license or correctness).

I personally subscribe to new OSM users feed for two countries which I'm 
focused on and check out their first edits, these are not high activity 
countries so perhaps others have more problems but so far none appears 
to be harmful, the opposite in fact, drive-by mappers that would be 
lovely to cajole into active mappers, or even zealous mappers!



Þann 15.05.2014 14:31, Janko Mihelić reit:
> I think we should look at those users not as organizational, or paid
> users, but as users that have too steep a curve of added nodes over
> time. An account registers, and immediately starts adding or modifying
> hundreds of nodes. That could either be an import, a very zealous
> early mapper, or someone who is paid by node. Either way, they should
> be controlled in some way.
> 
> Maybe put a limit on number of added nodes over time with some
> function that permits long-time mappers to add or modify as many nodes
> as they want, and limit new users. Of course, show them a link to
> where you can say what that account is doing, and get permission to
> add as many as you want even though you are a new user.
> 
> Janko
> 
> 2014-05-15 3:43 GMT+02:00 Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com>:
> 
>>> From: Mikel Maron [mailto:mikel_maron at yahoo.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:07 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Organizational mapping policy
>> 
>>> 
>>> I have to say, my initial reaction to this proposal was that it
>> was
>>> heavy handed, unnecessarily punitive, over reaching, and not in
>> the
>>> spirit of OSM. A cure worse than the disease.
>> 
>> To clarify (and I could have made this more explicit) there is
>> *not* a
>> proposed policy here.
>> 
>> The DWG is considering if it is necessary to issue guidelines, it
>> is not
>> decided that something needs to be issued or the contents of
>> anything
>> we'd issue. The items listed are possible requirements and possible
>> covered activities only. It is extremely unlikely that any policy
>> resulting from this will include all the possible requirements and
>> cover
>> all the possible activities. I'm personally against some of the
>> requirements listed as possibilities.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk [1]
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk