[OSM-talk] Metrics

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Partial solution is to stop cases where company is wasting time of everyone
involved. And force said company to improve its editing quality.

If some company is OK with damaging editing, ignoring feedback, ignoring rules
etc, then even finding great solution and improvements will change nothing.

I think that violations of https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines
should be treated seriously.

Specifically, user accounts should be actually blocked by DWG in case of mappers
reporting lack of compliance.

Currently this happens only in case of extreme damage, but should happen far 
more often. For example in case of user account not documenting properly
itself to be paid employee and not linking to OSM Wiki documentation page.

Right now various companies can mostly ignore complaints because they 
are allowed to continue editing in violation of our rules.

(This is about Ticket#2020103010000191 Ticket#2021071410000126 reports
that resulted in no blocks despite that employees are ignoring most of
OEG, including parts trivially easy to actually do.

They repeatedly damaged data, mislead about what will be edited, 
ignored feedback etc. All of that is irritating for mappers and overall value
of their activity is negative. Some blocks happened but over 8 months ago, 
were completely ignored and account is not blocked since that time.)


Oct 17, 2021, 01:32 by jwhelan0112 at gmail.com:

> 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/20211017/bcbd9a2c/attachment-0001.htm>