[OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors
Hi everyone, We are doing a research project on how OpenStreetMap users interact with each other. Are you willing to help us learn more about communication behaviors in OSM? Take this quick and anonymous survey and tell us if and how you use the OSM community forum, mailing lists, social media and other channels: https://forms.gle/UeAGs3VahuxBN7Ec7 We will share the results of this survey, along with other data, with the community. This can help users better understand communication habits in OSM, so they can identify the most effective ways to reach other community members. We will be presenting our findings at State of the Map US in Richmond, Virginia and in diary entries. So stay tuned for more and thank you for participating in our survey. Have a great weekend! Marjan Van de Kauter (OSMF Communication Working Group member and TomTom community engager) Courtney Williamson (OSMF Communication Working Group member) Keara Dennehy (TomTom business analyst) L.J. Lambert (TomTom business analyst) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors
Hello, Le 28.04.23 à 15:29, Marjan Van de Kauter a écrit : We are doing a research project on how OpenStreetMap users interact with each other. I am impressed (and disappointed) that those who do these surveys have still not learned that part of the active opendata community does not wish to ally a closeddata based enterprise (nominally: no use of google forms for some of us). I leave it to you to poll those who have a reduced sensitivity on the subject Regards, Marc ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors
On 28/04/2023 14:57, Marc_marc wrote: part of the active opendata community does not wish to ally a closeddata based enterprise It's actually worse than that. OpenStreetMap has mappers all around the world. Some of those places don't have the virtually unrestricted Internet access that people in the west may be accustomed to, and I wouldn't assume that a website of a major American company (Google) is available in all those places. Previously the Board and other OSMF working groups have taken care to ensure that everyone can contribute to surveys like this. Of all people, I'd have expected the Communication Working Group to be aware of this potential issue and to have taken steps to ensure that it wasn't one. Best Regards, Andy (writing in a personal capacity rather than as a member of the DWG) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] (small) automated edit of name:fiu-vro -> name:vro
Apr 25, 2023, 17:06 by jules.bou...@gmail.com: > > 10 > years> ago, manymultilingual country names were imported from > > wikipedia> /> wikidata> . > > Has anyone checked licensing situation when it was done? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors
I am impressed that some of you always choose the path to complain about things going against their own world view rather to provide useful suggestion / realistic alternatives or even better getting involved in the implementation as developers do. Google or Microsoft are unfortunately the choice of many non-technical users because it is what they know, feel comfortable with and is most of the time easy to use. Only few OSS projects come near their level (the good ones like Linux). So please stop complaining about when someone does not share your ideologic attitude. And wanting to use OSS only is a ideology. In this case privacy is not even a concern. So please stop polluting email threads with unnecessary replies. For myself I can say that I don't like the giants too but I use what the most know and what is an established standard like POSIX or GDrive. I even administrate a Google Workspace subscription althought I do not like it because Google Workspace has way too limited administration options and a questionable permission system in GDrive. The argumentation of "restricted internet access" is a weak one in an online project like OpenStreetMap. Maybe I get a warning for saying this. But I got banned from tagging already because I brought up an important topic three times prior warning not to do that so nothing to loose here :) Sören Apr 28, 2023 16:27:41 Andy Townsend : > On 28/04/2023 14:57, Marc_marc wrote: >> part of the active opendata community >> does not wish to ally a closeddata based enterprise > > It's actually worse than that. > > OpenStreetMap has mappers all around the world. Some of those places don't > have the virtually unrestricted Internet access that people in the west may > be accustomed to, and I wouldn't assume that a website of a major American > company (Google) is available in all those places. Previously the Board and > other OSMF working groups have taken care to ensure that everyone can > contribute to surveys like this. Of all people, I'd have expected the > Communication Working Group to be aware of this potential issue and to have > taken steps to ensure that it wasn't one. > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > (writing in a personal capacity rather than as a member of the DWG) > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] (small) automated edit of name:fiu-vro -> name:vro
No idea, it was way before I started contributing to OSM, but I guess (and hope!) someone had a look at this licensing point. A changeset from that time : https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/17267685#map=1/12/56 If you look, for example, at Tonga, compare versions 2 (before) and 3 (after) : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2186665/history Le 28/04/2023 à 16:34, Mateusz Konieczny via talk a écrit : Apr 25, 2023, 17:06 by jules.bou...@gmail.com: 10 years ago, many multilingual country names were imported from wikipedia/wikidata. Has anyone checked licensing situation when it was done? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors
On 28/04/2023 15:47, Sören Reinecke wrote: So please stop complaining about when someone does not share your ideologic attitude. And wanting to use OSS only is a ideology. In this case, it's not just my view, it's the view of the OSMF board: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Commitment_to_Open_Communication_Channels I have nothing against Google per se (casual observers will note that I'm posting this from a Gmail address), but we have to allow everyone to access a survey like this - including those people who are restricted by their government from using services such as Google's. In this case privacy is not even a concern. So please stop polluting email threads with unnecessary replies. :) Best Regards, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors
Not only do I understand the concern about unrestricted internet access, it is one of the reasons why we are undertaking our study of OSM community communication practices and habits--there are hundreds of channels, globally, and many of them have to do with working around this particular challenge. To the concern about Google specifically--we knew the challenges and drawbacks of using this form, but the benefits outweighed them, as there is no ideal option for this kind of survey available. In general, there is no perfect form and no perfect software for collecting this kind of data, and we are doing the best with available resources. For example, we are reaching out to the OSM community through Telegram, Reddit, Matrix, Discourse, Discord, and many other forums, and we are also looking at other forms of communications data in our analysis. To the specific comment about a CWG member knowing better. It is precisely because we are on the CWG that we are seeking to understand the community's communication behaviors, so that we can study it and offer our findings back to the community. We don't have perfect tools, we don't have unlimited means, and we are doing the best that we can do informed, considered, inclusive work. Interestingly, one of our questions has to do with "do you find OSM community forums to be positive and encouraging." I am finding the irony of this to be a bit rich at the moment. I would encourage skeptics to fill out the survey and tune in to our presentation in June and then judge our approaches. Courtney Williamson On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 10:56 AM Sören Reinecke wrote: > I am impressed that some of you always choose the path to complain about > things going against their own world view rather to provide useful > suggestion / realistic alternatives or even better getting involved in the > implementation as developers do. Google or Microsoft are unfortunately the > choice of many non-technical users because it is what they know, feel > comfortable with and is most of the time easy to use. Only few OSS projects > come near their level (the good ones like Linux). > > So please stop complaining about when someone does not share your > ideologic attitude. And wanting to use OSS only is a ideology. In this case > privacy is not even a concern. So please stop polluting email threads with > unnecessary replies. > > For myself I can say that I don't like the giants too but I use what the > most know and what is an established standard like POSIX or GDrive. I even > administrate a Google Workspace subscription althought I do not like it > because Google Workspace has way too limited administration options and a > questionable permission system in GDrive. > > The argumentation of "restricted internet access" is a weak one in an > online project like OpenStreetMap. > > > Maybe I get a warning for saying this. But I got banned from tagging > already because I brought up an important topic three times prior warning > not to do that so nothing to loose here :) > > Sören > > Apr 28, 2023 16:27:41 Andy Townsend : > > > On 28/04/2023 14:57, Marc_marc wrote: > >> part of the active opendata community > >> does not wish to ally a closeddata based enterprise > > > > It's actually worse than that. > > > > OpenStreetMap has mappers all around the world. Some of those places > don't have the virtually unrestricted Internet access that people in the > west may be accustomed to, and I wouldn't assume that a website of a major > American company (Google) is available in all those places. Previously the > Board and other OSMF working groups have taken care to ensure that everyone > can contribute to surveys like this. Of all people, I'd have expected the > Communication Working Group to be aware of this potential issue and to have > taken steps to ensure that it wasn't one. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Andy > > > > (writing in a personal capacity rather than as a member of the DWG) > > > > > > > > ___ > > talk mailing list > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- --Courtney Cook Williamson survivalbybook.substack.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors
Hey all -- how about going easier here and helping each other. Rather than condemnation over a relatively minor decision of which platform to use for a survey. I think suggestion for another platform is easy enough to consider and remedy. OSMF has used limesurvey in the past, it can be looked at here. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 10:56:22 AM EDT, Sören Reinecke wrote: I am impressed that some of you always choose the path to complain about things going against their own world view rather to provide useful suggestion / realistic alternatives or even better getting involved in the implementation as developers do. Google or Microsoft are unfortunately the choice of many non-technical users because it is what they know, feel comfortable with and is most of the time easy to use. Only few OSS projects come near their level (the good ones like Linux). So please stop complaining about when someone does not share your ideologic attitude. And wanting to use OSS only is a ideology. In this case privacy is not even a concern. So please stop polluting email threads with unnecessary replies. For myself I can say that I don't like the giants too but I use what the most know and what is an established standard like POSIX or GDrive. I even administrate a Google Workspace subscription althought I do not like it because Google Workspace has way too limited administration options and a questionable permission system in GDrive. The argumentation of "restricted internet access" is a weak one in an online project like OpenStreetMap. Maybe I get a warning for saying this. But I got banned from tagging already because I brought up an important topic three times prior warning not to do that so nothing to loose here :) Sören Apr 28, 2023 16:27:41 Andy Townsend : > On 28/04/2023 14:57, Marc_marc wrote: >> part of the active opendata community >> does not wish to ally a closeddata based enterprise > > It's actually worse than that. > > OpenStreetMap has mappers all around the world. Some of those places don't > have the virtually unrestricted Internet access that people in the west may > be accustomed to, and I wouldn't assume that a website of a major American > company (Google) is available in all those places. Previously the Board and > other OSMF working groups have taken care to ensure that everyone can > contribute to surveys like this. Of all people, I'd have expected the > Communication Working Group to be aware of this potential issue and to have > taken steps to ensure that it wasn't one. > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > (writing in a personal capacity rather than as a member of the DWG) > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors
Le 28.04.23 à 16:47, Sören Reinecke a écrit : rather to provide useful suggestion / realistic alternatives I don't know how many times this has been proposed here is one https://framaforms.org So please stop complaining Wasn't the aim to collect opinions on the communication ? wanting to use OSS only is a ideology i'm not talking about OSS but about a privacy-friendly hoster: if the study is based on a closed software hosted by the team doing the survey, it would be a shame but you would not have heard any criticism from me. if the study is based on open software hosted by a profiling company, I would have had the same issue as i have with Google form PS : osm is also an ideology :) In this case privacy is not even a concern. a company whose economic activity is to build a profile to sell it via advertising not a privacy concern ? :-O Regards, Marc ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors
> I don't know how many times this has been proposed > here is one > https[https://framaforms.org]://[https://framaforms.org]framaforms.org[https://framaforms.org] I see the problem. 1. I've heard > https[https://framaforms.org]://[https://framaforms.org]framaforms.org[https://framaforms.org] my first time. It is even not correctly fully translated to English. The first barrier :) 2. Proposing is not enough (at least where I come from). The proposer or one of their like minded needs to go into the lead to make others apply the new tool to their workflow. As I said earlier: People use what they know and feel comfortable with. You need to make sure that people get comfortable with the new tool if you cannot force them to use it. 3. Optional: The OSMF not providing guidance how to make surveys, on which platform etc. > a company whose economic activity is to build a profile > to sell it via advertising not a privacy concern ? :-O You fill out this form without Google account required, you clear your browser cache after closing your browser, you use good browsers like Firefox, your ip address changes frequently if you're lucky living in Europe/Canada. These actually understand privacy (and at least Europeans turn it into an ideology or ignore it completely. Only the extreme sides exist here mostly). Apr 28, 2023 17:27:58 Marc_marc : > Le 28.04.23 à 16:47, Sören Reinecke a écrit : >> rather to provide useful suggestion / realistic alternatives > > I don't know how many times this has been proposed > here is one https://framaforms.org > >> So please stop complaining > > Wasn't the aim to collect opinions on the communication ? > >> wanting to use OSS only is a ideology > > i'm not talking about OSS but about a privacy-friendly hoster: > if the study is based on a closed software hosted by the team doing > the survey, it would be a shame but you would not have heard any criticism > from me. > if the study is based on open software hosted by a profiling company, > I would have had the same issue as i have with Google form > > PS : osm is also an ideology :) > >> In this case privacy is not even a concern. > > a company whose economic activity is to build a profile > to sell it via advertising not a privacy concern ? :-O > > Regards, > Marc > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed automated edit of some barrier=kerb kerb=raised nodes (forum crosspost)
Please let me know if there are any unresolved concerns about this proposed edit. If there are no objections I would like to run it this weekend. List of example nodes that I'm proposing to edit: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposed-edit-of-some-barrier-kerb-kerb-raised-nodes/98038/13 Wiki page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits/osmuser63783 Example changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/135319439 --- Original Message --- On Friday, April 21st, 2023 at 18:53, osmuser63783 wrote: > Hi all > > Apologies if this doesn't show correctly as a reply to the previous mail, > I've only just signed up to the mailing list. Also for the silly pseudonym! I > set up my OSM account two years ago to make one edit and never thought it > would turn into a hobby! > >> on the shared node between the footway and a road ? > > Yes, I'm proposing an automated edit that concerns the shared node between a > footway and a road. Of course highway=crossing kerb=* is perfectly acceptable > tagging, I am not proposing any changes related to that. The vast majority of > nodes that I am proposing to remove barrier=kerb from do not have > highway=crossing. > >> I propose a simpler logic: highway=crossing + barrier=* is an error -> check >> a series of cases to see if it is correct to mechanically remove barrier=* >> (for me : ok) > > I agree that removing barrier=* from highway=crossing is safe but that is a > separate problem. There is not much overlap between that and the problem I am > describing. > >> I don't understand the mix >> kerb=* (raised or not) without a highway=crossing is a kerb at this location >> and is thus a barrier=kerb or a missing highway=crossing > > When a footway meets a road and the kerb is not lowered, StreetComplete adds > kerb=raised, by itself, without highway=crossing, so that kerb=raised is the > only tag on the node. The developer of StreetComplete did not want to add a > highway=crossing tag, because there are people who say that highway=crossing > should only be added when there is some infrastructure. It would equally be > wrong to add crossing=no because that suggests that it is impossible or > illegal to cross. Therefore, StreetComplete only adds kerb=raised. > > Is this the best way to tag this? I don't know. The developer of > StreetComplete is open to changing it, and this is being discussed here: > https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagging-kerbs-on-crossings/9290/24 > >> you forget all values other than kerb=raised >> you forget the highway=service which have the same problem > > I am proposing a mechanical edit only to nodes where I am 100% sure that the > barrier=kerb is wrong. > > I am deliberately excluding values other than kerb=raised because it has been > pointed out to me that barrier=kerb kerb=lowered legitimately occurs on some > residential roads (the cars have to drive over the kerb). So barrier=kerb on > roads with any other values of kerb=* in my view need to be reviewed on a > case by case basis.I also imagine that to reach some highway=service you have > to drive over a kerb. So these would also need to be reviewed case by case. > > The cases where I am sure the barrier=kerb is wrong are those where > StreetComplete added kerb=raised and then later someone added barrier=kerb in > iD, following the validator suggestion. kerb=raised is the only value of > kerb= that StreetComplete adds without a crossing tag. It also doesn't ask > this quest about service roads or motorways (I checked the code), so there is > no reason to include this in my initial Overpass query that identifies > candidate nodes. > > Hope this makes it clearer what I'm trying to do and why!___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors
Not to make too fine a point, but OSMF policy notwithstanding, the OSMF Board of Directors uses Google Mail, the OSMF participates in Google Summer of Code, and Google was a sponsor of SOTM 2022 in Florence.[1] As for foreign governments restricting access to Google assets, correct me if I am wrong but this mainly affects China and Iran, and probably a few other totalitarian regimes (e.g., North Korea?), but not the vast majority of OSM project participants. Rather than criticize the CWG for using Google because certain people are restricted by their governments from using Google services, it would be more useful to suggest alternatives that might work in those countries. My two manats' worth (having served 4-1/2 years as a diplomat in a totalitarian country that restricts access to 3/4 of the world's IP addresses). cheers, apm [1] https://2022.stateofthemap.org/#sponsors Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:03:49 +0100 From: Andy Townsend To: S?ren Reinecke Cc:talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed On 28/04/2023 15:47, S?ren Reinecke wrote: So please stop complaining about when someone does not share your ideologic attitude. And wanting to use OSS only is a ideology. In this case, it's not just my view, it's the view of the OSMF board: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Commitment_to_Open_Communication_Channels I have nothing against Google per se (casual observers will note that I'm posting this from a Gmail address), but we have to allow everyone to access a survey like this - including those people who are restricted by their government from using services such as Google's. In this case privacy is not even a concern. So please stop polluting email threads with unnecessary replies. 😄 Best Regards, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors
On 28/04/2023 22:50, Allan Mustard wrote: Rather than criticize the CWG for using Google because certain people are restricted by their governments from using Google services, it would be more useful to suggest alternatives that might work in those countries. Mikel already mentioned that OSMF had used Limesurvey earlier; that was also what the DWG used when we last ran a survey a while back, and what the organisers of this survey have suggested they will use it too (in various of the other channels that it has been announced). I don't have up to date info on where that might be blocked, but at least a couple of the channels in which this survey has been announced have contributors who may have more up to date info on whether something is reachable or not - from both of the countries you mentioned.** Best Regards, Andy ** I'm not being more specific because I don't want to advertise an activity that might be "frowned upon" in a particular country, or which particular OSM channel people doing that might be found in. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors
Since this seems to be an interesting topic, I will go ahead and add more fineness of detail. First, the reason I personally am interested in this survey as a communications person, is that I believe that looking at the actual data about how OSM'ers communicate may help the community uncover more effective ways to collaborate. It will almost certainly give much finer grained detail on how this large, diverse, global community connects online than any other study that I, personally, have seen. We believe that this research will have a direct benefit to OSM users. Though my colleagues work at TomTom, this project is not "for" TomTom, it is adjacent to their community engagement work and comes from our collective realization that there is a need for this kind of data within the community, and that we have the skills to provide it. Second, the survey is part of a bigger project; we have been looking at the publically available data on OSM communications channels for several months. By sending the survey out, we are looking for qualitative data to support our quantitative research; it is not our only data source. Third, re: our requirements.We had several requirements for what we needed the form to do and how we wanted to distribute it. One was that it needed to be mobile friendly, for the aforementioned reasons. We also needed it to be anonymous. We also needed to be able to make multiple, identical copies of the same survey because we are using a dedicated link for each kind of channel so that we can correlate responses to the type of channel in which the survey was accessed. We also needed the form to be able to handle certain types of question/answer combinations. We also needed it to be able to handle potentially hundreds of answers and collect the data in a way that we, with our limited time, could process. We looked at all of these things and also consulted with friends who are OSM users within communities in Africa and Asia on useability of the survey, as well as on best channels in which to post--this, as an anecdotal check on what we already knew from our preliminary data. Fourth, we took the feedback and are now going to offer a limesurvey as an option for those who cannot or do not want to take the Google survey, as a courtesy. We will report that choice as data as well. Fifth, I appreciate the concern about software that is not OS, but I thoroughly reviewed the FOSS policy quite recently and will call everyone's attention to language such as "we strongly prefer" and "we will consider a full range of criteria". https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/FOSS_Policy. As well, this is not an OSMF survey, nor is it a CWG survey. Yes, two of us volunteer for the CWG, but it is not formally "from" or "of" the OSMF. Many people study OSM and post surveys. We are amongst those people and are looking forward to presenting our findings back to the community in several phases over the rest of 2023. Speaking again as a communicator, and not for my team, but just myself, I think that we would do well to be wary of assuming that "access" means something like "100% of everyone everywhere can easily use all the time, no matter what". There is no such accessibility in any tool, anywhere in the material world, nor the existential one. Our aim was to distribute the easiest to use tool in the most often-used channels and to get as many surveys as we can, so that we can learn more about how this remarkable organization communicates. Finally, the best way to increase the efficacy, access, and inclusion in OSM communications is to get more data and study it. Therefore, I hope that readers of this forum will share the link widely within the listserv ecosystem. And, if you are on other channels, please amplify the link that is in that channel within that channel. As mentioned before, I do hope many folks tune in to our presentation in Richmond. I am the writer in the research group, not one of the analysts, but I believe the results are going to be surprising and interesting for many. On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 6:19 PM Andy Townsend wrote: > On 28/04/2023 22:50, Allan Mustard wrote: > > Rather than criticize the CWG for using Google because certain people > > are restricted by their governments from using Google services, it > > would be more useful to suggest alternatives that might work in those > > countries. > > > Mikel already mentioned that OSMF had used Limesurvey earlier; that was > also what the DWG used when we last ran a survey a while back, and what > the organisers of this survey have suggested they will use it too (in > various of the other channels that it has been announced). I don't have > up to date info on where that might be blocked, but at least a couple of > the channels in which this survey has been announced have contributors > who may have more up to date info on whether something is reachable or > not - from both of the countries you mentioned.** > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > ** I'm not be
Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 5:52 PM Courtney wrote: > As well, this is not an OSMF survey, nor is it a CWG survey. Yes, two of > us volunteer for the CWG, but it is not formally "from" or "of" the OSMF. > I guess I didn't read the original email closely enough. I got the impression that this was a CWG survey. Mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk