[OSM-talk] Metrics

john whelan jwhelan0112 at gmail.com
Sat Oct 16 23:32:19 UTC 2021


I think the problem is more can we find a different metric for paid mappers
to be evaluated on.

I accept whatever we choose can be gamed to some extent but if we could
measure how many kilometers of highway had been added rather than how many
had had their tags updated that might help.

Offering guidance to someone who is paid according to how they are measured
may not help.  Would you deliberately reduce your income if it meant doing
things correctly?  You might but others might not.

Perhaps how many nodes they have added to the map?  Plus how many new
tags?  Can these be measured?

Cheerio John



On Sat, Oct 16, 2021, 19:09 stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:

> On Oct 16, 2021, at 3:41 PM, Justin Tracey <j3tracey at gmail.com> wrote:
> > FWIW though, I've personally found that politely reaching out to
> score-seeker contributors, even if they don't reply, is usually (though not
> always) enough to get them to at least greatly reduce the problematic
> behavior in question.
>
> Excellent, Justin; me, too.  I'd even say that MOST of this time, a
> "reduction" is exactly the (expected) result.  But when it is not and
> stronger measures are required, well, it's time to apply stronger
> measures.  It is as simple as that.
>
> Bad behavior in OSM must be addressed, and I know that our DWG do "yeoman
> work" that I and virtually everybody appreciate.  But as DWG likely can't
> do everything (maybe someday they can?) other conscientious users,
> especially those with the skills to properly wield powerful tools like
> changeset reverting, remains necessary.  Please, be a respected member of
> the OSM community if / as you use these tools and use them conscientiously
> in the rare cases when you might find them a requirement.
>
> Yes, it can be a fine line to determine if somebody (whether through sheer
> ignorance — understandable and somewhat excusable with the correct attitude
> of apology and "how can I improve?" — or whether deliberate, determined ill
> will) is damaging our data inadvertently or with malicious intent.  The
> usual "escalation" steps, starting with contact (and their reply can speak
> volumes as to what they really mean to do, although there truly are covert
> actors and real-life liars), moving up to DWG reporting, are correct.
> "Score seeking" behavior, seemingly only recently (and openly) identified
> as problematic, might be considered "more mild" forms of damage to our
> data, but it, too, should be "nipped in the bud" where it is identified.
>
> Let's not forget the simple tenet that "abuse is abuse," also stated
> "damage is damage" or even "vandalism is vandalism."  I know that good,
> earnest communication can often "fix" an errant (and apologetic)
> volunteer's efforts gone awry, these are actually opportunities to level-up
> novice mappers to become BETTER mappers.  But:  fifth chances, ninth
> chances, seventeenth chances...no.  We must be ready and willing to excise
> such cancer.
>
> SteveA
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20211016/6b31cb89/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the talk mailing list