[OSM-talk] DWG survey on organised editing
gdt at lexort.com
Sun Sep 24 15:48:21 UTC 2017
I think the survey asks excellent questions.
One nit is that while I think the notion of paid/organized as a single
notion is generally good, I do see a distinction in one area, and might
have answered the anonymous question differently for the two sub-groups.
Besides paid and unpaid, there is also the question of students in a
class. While they aren't paid, it seems much closer to the paid case,
because the leader has control over them. So perhaps even if the
mappers are unpaid, they should be considered in the paid category if
there is any kind of power relationship with the leader that is larger
than just deciding to participate in a mapping activity.
For example, if I offered a class through the local adult ed "intro to
mapping with osm", and people signed up, that would be just about that
class, people would have signed up only to learn, not to get any
credentialss, there are no grades, etc., so this is merely organized not
paid. But if as part of a college degree program, one of the classes
expects people to learn to map, and how you do affects grades etc., that
is far more like paid in terms of the obligation to comply.
I think the notion that the line is crossed when someone begins to act
as other than an individual mapper who intends to contribute over the
long term. Deferring to one's group leader when questioned is clear
evidence of this.
I agree that many of the possible problems can arise similarly for paid
and un-paid organized mappers. However, for paid mapping, there is a
much more serious possible conflict of interest in terms of the paid
mapper optimizing for the metrics of how they are paid rather than the
good of the overall project. I suspect that the unpaid organized
mappers are trying to make the map better, even if for some particular
I wonder if paying for number of objects added, vs by the hour, is more
likely to be problematic.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 162 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the talk