[OSM-talk] Organizational mapping policy

[Jóhannes Birgir Jensson]

Substitute cajole for persuade...

Þann 15.05.2014 15:48, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson reit:
> 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