[OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users
61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Dec 28 01:14:08 UTC 2016
Targeting Pokemon contributors falls into a trap... the assumption that a particular activity/group are all inclined to vandalism.
These new contributors could be very usefull ... if 'we' don't tar them all with abusive thoughts.
On 28-Dec-16 10:50 AM, Rod Bera wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> just to make myself understood:
> improving the db by adding relevant features and tags is a good thing
> for everyone, even though those doing so (literally everyone) do it in
> places they chose with tags they're interested in.
> To me this is working for the community. This does not degrade the
> overall quality and accuracy of the OSM base. Rather the opposite. This
> is exactly what OSM is about. The fact that the improvement is local and
> thematic is unavoidable.
And here 'we' degrade the nonlocal contributors.
> But this is a different story if my edits don't conform to ground truth.
> It also has a name when done on purpose: vandalism.
> Users who deliberately put incorrect or fictional stuff into OSM are
> working for their benefits (catching more Pokemons), and their edits are
> detrimental to the community.
Not all vandals work for their 'benefits', some make changes far from their locations - I can see no 'benefit' other than their own amusement.
The usual view is - what I do is 'good', and if your not doing the same kind of thing it is of lesser value.
Takes while for most to accept that most people do 'good' by what ever means they enter data (say 90%) -
a few of the remainder have made a mistake in tagging (say 90% of the remainder) -
a few of the remainder have made a mistake in recognition of a feature (say 90% of the remainder) -
a few of the remainder have made a mistake in copyright (say 90% of the remainder) -
and then you have the deliberate vandals ... less than 99.99% of contributors.
> On 27/12/16 11:31, Andy Townsend wrote:
>> Just to pick up one point from this...
>> On 26/12/16 11:36, Rod Bera wrote:
>>> Systematic bias put into the OSM base towards maximising benefits for a
>>> minority of users is a threat.
>>> Especially when the primary interest of these users is not OSM in itself.
>> Sounds like I'm bang to rights there! Most of what I add to OSM
>> (footpaths, trees, whether a local pub has a stone floor and a real fire
>> etc.) could be exactly described as "maximising benefits for a minority
>> of users". Worse, the local OSMers all seem to be doing the same thing
>> - shops, house numbers, a borderline obsession with tunnels, but
>> everyone has different ideas of what to do, so that somehow a wide range
>> of things are covered.
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
More information about the talk