Re: [OSM-talk] Directed Editing Policy

[Tim Waters]

I've a couple of examples, and a couple of questions which might aid the
discussion.

I recently did some work which would label me as both a directee and a
director. For each changeset I added a custom changeset tag which I thought
was the sensible thing to do. It was also helpful for me to be able to
track the work I did, amongst my other edits at that time. I'm assuming
that this bundle of changesets could be searched for an clustered, and that
I wouldn't need to create another changeset tag for a similar tranche of
work in the future. At the time I did actually briefly consider writing a
wiki page about the work, but thought that too onerous (it was a short
project) and against the spirit of OSM (the world should be free to edit
the free map). I thought I shouldn't have to document all my actions to
contribute. If the policy was adopted, I'd have to go along with it. I
would feel less of an equal, or more under scrutiny if I did.

Some time last year I ran a mapping workshop where participants were
mapping a specific type of feature, using custom presets using established
tags. The use of the presets helped ensure that the tags were consistent.
We didn't really use any specific changeset comments or any new tags, but
when Field Papers was used, I believe this was recorded. The custom editor
was able to add changeset tags too. Again the tools help record the custom
sources involved. Before I ran the workshop, although it was free, public
and publicised, and although the project itself was documented on the wiki
and elsewhere, I did not feel any need to document the actual directed
mapping.

These are just my two experiences, the policy as a whole reads well and I
understand that there is an issue which needs addressing, I hope our
discussions can bring some nuance and improve matters.

Now - the questions:
When I was reading the draft policy, I imagined the state of the Wiki.
Would it be polluted full of stale pages of small directed mapping projects
after a few years?
As the suggestion is that a timeframe is added to the page - is this easily
machine readable and parseable within the Wiki software?
Would it be easy to just see currently active projects, or just see those
projects which were upcoming?


Regards,

Tim
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Directed Editing Policy

[David Earl]

I and colleagues are affected by this policy in that we maintain the map,
which is based on OSM data, for the estate of the University of Cambridge
(obviously, not exclusively, but in practice, most of the work is done by
us, and there are some parts of the estate that aren't generally
accessible). As well as the main map, we have a number of little spin-off
projects, like one that's going on now to locate all specialist recycling
points in the University (paper and cans etc being ubiquitous, but things
like pens less so). The main part of the project was in 2012, and in one
way or another, I did in fact informally do most of what the policy would
require in the future.

While I don't think it's particularly unreasonable, the policy feels very
off-putting to me and I think it feels quite hostile to what is a benign
and desirable activity.

It's also all rather about their obligations to OSM. I think it could work
more positively both ways, giving assurances that if they've followed the
rules, there is some expectation that what they do can last into the future
and that their investment has some degree of security. Groups are making
changes for a reason, presumably. If they are doing so reasonably, it would
be really nice to think that their efforts were supported and encouraged,
not just accepted by sufferance as this policy feels, or even undermined.
If they are putting real money into developing the map, then not
undermining their efforts, supporting the declarations made in public under
the policy into the future. Give businesses putting in real money something
back for their investment in terms of support, not discouragement. OSM can
be a very hostile place to try to work within and slews of hostile reaction
to starting a project doesn't get it off to a good start.

Another part of the University, unrelated to the map group, did start
making changes, with a group of volunteers in a class, in exactly the
unfortunate way that this policy is designed to prevent (and I still
haven't undone all of them) because they just blundered in without thinking
about the co-operative nature of the project. They got stamped on pretty
promptly though by several of us (both within the University mapping
project and others, and not least because they broke the public map of the
University!) But unfortunately the effect of that was for them just to
abandon what they were doing rather than try to take advice in how to do it
right. Waving a formal policy in their face would have made things worse, I
think: the problem was they didn't understand, and a policy wouldn't have
made them understand any better - they wouldn't have been any more aware of
it than they were of any other aspect of what they were doing.

Putting other hats on, I sometimes produce paper maps for people, for
example, as a paid job. On the whole that need not concern OSM - I'm just a
data consumer for those purposes. However, it's a rare project where I
don't find something is wrong or incomplete in the data as I do it, and of
course I go in and correct it, either by surveying, or from local knowledge
or whatever - or, perhaps somewhat closer to this discussion - based on
information from the client, like building plans (copyright permitting of
course). So sometimes, it's only a side effect of a project that I discover
errors and fix them, things I would have done anyway without it being part
of a paid project, had I been aware of them.

But leaving aside the general points, there's some specific things:

(a) the policy is focussed around new activity, but we've been doing the
University map project for many years, so some of the requirements and
recommendations don't really fit.

(b) B2 starts "You *must* aim to comply with...".  Surely either "must" or
"should"; "must aim to" = "should" and "aim to" is fuzzy.

(c) A6 says 24 hours to reply to something. That seems a ridiculously short
time, especially as this is aimed at people who will most likely follow a
pattern of working days, possibly part time, take holidays and time off,
sleep and the like. Just because OSM keenies work at it 24/7 doesn't mean
everyone else does.

David
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Directed Editing Policy

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Thanks Frederik. This is a good explanation. Can some of it perhaps be
added to the document to make it clearer?

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 6:22 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 22.11.2017 04:16, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> > Pierre, I suspect the number of QA-tool-driven changes are as big, if
> > not much bigger than changes from the organized events and paid editing.
> > I agree QA tools should be regulated, but are you sure we want to do it
> > in the same document, and significantly increase the scope?
>
> This is something that was discussed at length while drafting the
> policy, and you are certainly right, it *is* a difficult area.
>
> The spirit of the policy can largely expressed in "responsibility"
> terms; the policy, by and large, applies whenever the person being
> responsible for an edit is not the person making it.
>
> Most QA tools still require the user to take responsibility. If the QA
> tool says "here's a road that crosses a river without a bridge or ford
> or anything, please check on aerial imagery and apply correct tagging"
> then the responsibility clearly lies with the user. Even if the QA tool
> says "this road is tagged highway=residentail, should it perhaps be
> highway=residential instead?" the responsibility still lies with the
> user. You could go so far as to say: A QA tool that doesn't require the
> user to take responsibility is not a QA tool, it is a distributed
> mechanical edit and as such, covered by its own policy already.
>
> (Of course if I now set up "the great bridge fixing event" where I
> invite people to help me fix all these problems in one weekend, and
> provide detailed instructions to absolute newcomers on how to fix
> bridges, then there might be a point where responsibility shifts to me
> and I am now "directing" these people to use the QA tool to fix things.)
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> 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] Directed Editing Policy

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 22.11.2017 04:16, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Pierre, I suspect the number of QA-tool-driven changes are as big, if
> not much bigger than changes from the organized events and paid editing.
> I agree QA tools should be regulated, but are you sure we want to do it
> in the same document, and significantly increase the scope?

This is something that was discussed at length while drafting the
policy, and you are certainly right, it *is* a difficult area.

The spirit of the policy can largely expressed in "responsibility"
terms; the policy, by and large, applies whenever the person being
responsible for an edit is not the person making it.

Most QA tools still require the user to take responsibility. If the QA
tool says "here's a road that crosses a river without a bridge or ford
or anything, please check on aerial imagery and apply correct tagging"
then the responsibility clearly lies with the user. Even if the QA tool
says "this road is tagged highway=residentail, should it perhaps be
highway=residential instead?" the responsibility still lies with the
user. You could go so far as to say: A QA tool that doesn't require the
user to take responsibility is not a QA tool, it is a distributed
mechanical edit and as such, covered by its own policy already.

(Of course if I now set up "the great bridge fixing event" where I
invite people to help me fix all these problems in one weekend, and
provide detailed instructions to absolute newcomers on how to fix
bridges, then there might be a point where responsibility shifts to me
and I am now "directing" these people to use the QA tool to fix things.)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Directed Editing Policy

[Wiklund Johan]

I don’t read it as being optional now:

"You must set up, or have someone set up, a Wiki page" ... "This page must 
truthfully describe" ... "a unique hashtag (to be used in the "hashtags" field 
of changesets, or another form of changeset tagging) for linking and"

Perhaps the bullet should say "any unique hashtags (to be used in the 
"hashtags" field of changesets, or another form of changeset tagging) for 
linking and" instead. That would simply make it mandatory to list what hashtags 
you are using, rather an imposing a rule that every activity must be 
hashtagged. Just like the non-standard tools are optional by having the "any" 
at the beginning.


Johan Wiklund
Data manager 
johan.wikl...@entur.org




www.entur.org


-Original Message-
From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] 
Sent: onsdag 22. november 2017 11.54
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Directed Editing Policy

Hi,

On 22.11.2017 09:49, Wiklund Johan wrote:
> (first of all, I have not read the backlog of this conversation, only 
> the last few messages)

[...]

> Therefore I feel I am opposed to the absoluteness of the damand of 
> hashtagging every changeset

Just as a reminder, the proposed policy leaves you the choice of either 
creating a user account that you link to your company/activity ("all edits made 
with this account are in this context"), *or* tagging individual changesets.

> Also there is a wording that keeps confusing me in the policy:
> 
> You *must* ensure that people looking at your edits know that they are 
> part of a directed mapping activity

Good catch ;) - there are likely to be a number of style and language issues 
that we'll have to sort out once the contents are agreed but I'll make sure to 
flag this.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
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] Directed Editing Policy

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 22.11.2017 09:49, Wiklund Johan wrote:
> (first of all, I have not read the backlog of this conversation, only
> the last few messages)

[...]

> Therefore I feel I am opposed to the absoluteness of the damand of
> hashtagging every changeset

Just as a reminder, the proposed policy leaves you the choice of either
creating a user account that you link to your company/activity ("all
edits made with this account are in this context"), *or* tagging
individual changesets.

> Also there is a wording that keeps confusing me in the policy:
> 
> You *must* ensure that people looking at your edits know that they are
> part of a directed mapping activity

Good catch ;) - there are likely to be a number of style and language
issues that we'll have to sort out once the contents are agreed but I'll
make sure to flag this.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Directed Editing Policy

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 22 November 2017, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > This policy applies as soon as someone is
> > directed by a third party exactly what and how to contribute to
> > OpenStreetMap.
>
> Maybe it would be a good idea to exclude small scale guided
> editing. For example my friend asked me to show how OSM worked.
>
> I showed him/her a map and asked to find something missing or mistake
> and later showed how to add this.
>
> It was clearly a guided editing as defined here - and I am not going
> to set up wiki pages etc before doing this the next time.

The question where exactly to draw the line with directed/organized 
editing is something that has been in discussion since the idea first 
came up.  This is a tricky question.  The policy tries to solve this 
with two relatively simple and clear criteria but this will of course 
still lead to people wondering if they are covered by this or not in 
some cases.

In your example i would say this is quite clearly not covered by the 
policy because your friend is not directed by you exactly what and how 
to contribute to OpenStreetMap.  You decide together what you use as 
teaching examples (like let's find an unmapped house in X and i will 
show you how to map this).  There is no director-directee relationship 
between you and your friend.  Maybe your friend also says: Look, this 
house is missing in OSM - show me how i can add this.

This is why the policy says "directed by a third party exactly what and 
how to contribute to OpenStreetMap".  Both the what and how are 
necessary conditions here.  In a one-on-one teaching situation without 
a clear hierarchy between teacher and teached this is usually not the 
case.  You as the teacher tell how to map but this does not have the 
form of instructions, you just explain the rules.  If your friend then 
receives a complaint from a fellow mapper he won't say "This were the 
instructions i got from Mateusz".

Note this does not necessarily apply to every teaching situation - as 
soon as the teaching happens with a specific agenda - like for example 
a mapping event for a specific purpose (like mapping buildings in a 
certain city) where newcomers are given a quick crash course to enable 
them to map this specific thing at the event ("exactly what and how") 
the policy does apply.

This is just my personal interpretation of the policy of course - others 
might see this differently.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Directed Editing Policy

[Wiklund Johan]

(first of all, I have not read the backlog of this conversation, only the last 
few messages)

Hi

I work for a company that does public transport information and we use OSM for 
footrouting, POIs and background map. This means we do very general edits 
without any particular directives to what, when and how. Basically if we see a 
problem – any problem – we fix it ad hoc. We might be tracing or importing 
missing roads (in accordance with Norwegian road import regulations), fixing 
mispelled names or improper tagging, draw in railway platforms etc. Because of 
the great diversity and general nature of our mapping I feel it would make more 
sense to simply have user profile linking rather than the changeset hashtags. 
My user would act as the hashtag. Otherwise we would have to use lots of 
hashtags for different types of edits or just one that means “this is us” which 
would only mirror our user profiles anyway.

Therefore I feel I am opposed to the absoluteness of the damand of hashtagging 
every changeset – although I see its usefulness for mapping events or 
Maproulettes.




++
Also there is a wording that keeps confusing me in the policy:
You must ensure that people looking at your edits know that they are part of a 
directed mapping activity

Looks like the people looking at the edits are part of the activity.


Johan Wiklund
Data manager
johan.wikl...@entur.org<mailto:johan.wikl...@entur.org>
www.entur.org<http://www.entur.org/>



From: Yuri Astrakhan [mailto:yuriastrak...@gmail.com]
Sent: onsdag 22. november 2017 04.16
To: Pierre Béland 
Cc: Talk Openstreetmap 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Directed Editing Policy

Pierre, I suspect the number of QA-tool-driven changes are as big, if not much 
bigger than changes from the organized events and paid editing. I agree QA 
tools should be regulated, but are you sure we want to do it in the same 
document, and significantly increase the scope?
My understanding is that the original goal was to regulate paid editing and 
community events. Covering QA tools might make the doc too generic.  It would 
have to take a detailed look at all existing tools, even including JOSM's 
validators -- if I edit a location (e.g. move a road), and the tool suggests 
additional edits in that location (e.g. change the tagging of a connected 
road), isn't that directed editing that was organized by the validation rule 
author? Plus the introduction, and a lot of text would have to be rewritten to 
dedicate as much space to the tools as to organized events and director's 
duties.
Just saying that the scope creep might make the statement less concise, and QA 
tools may need to be a separate document.

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Pierre Béland 
mailto:pierz...@yahoo.fr>> wrote:
There is a constant increae of organized contributions from Task Managers on QA 
tools and I agree that this policy should include these various organized 
contributions.

There should be a goal assure the follow-up of these various projects to assure 
a better collective coordination of the mapping.

I am not sure that we could effectively have all organizers of Events create a 
wiki page. But organizers like for example the Geoweek, that invite to create 
local events should have a wiki page well documented. A section could be added 
to list the specific events + who organize them.

The Changeset database is the place where we should be able to follow the 
various mapping projects. There is actually no common way to document the QA or 
TM host, the specific project and the various events connecting to the various 
projects. To document how these various coordination tools should be reported  
on the changesets would facilitate the follow-up.

Actually, not all instances of the Tasking Manager add an hashtag to document 
the host and project no. For QA tools, specific projects / missions are not 
documented either.


Pierre


Le mardi 21 novembre 2017 21:21:55 HNE, Yuri Astrakhan 
mailto:yuriastrak...@gmail.com>> a écrit :


While this might not have been the intention, the

  >  b) directed by a third party exactly what and how to contribute to 
OpenStreetMap

can be applied to any "challenge style" sites such as the MapRoulette or 
Osmose.  I think there should either be a clarification about this, an 
additional discussion with the community, or a specific exclusion.  I know that 
the preamble is talking about paid editing, schools, and mapping events, but 
the text below it seems to have a wider scope.
penstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Directed Editing Policy

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Pierre, I suspect the number of QA-tool-driven changes are as big, if not
much bigger than changes from the organized events and paid editing. I
agree QA tools should be regulated, but are you sure we want to do it in
the same document, and significantly increase the scope?

My understanding is that the original goal was to regulate paid editing and
community events. Covering QA tools might make the doc too generic.  It
would have to take a detailed look at all existing tools, even including
JOSM's validators -- if I edit a location (e.g. move a road), and the tool
suggests additional edits in that location (e.g. change the tagging of a
connected road), isn't that directed editing that was organized by the
validation rule author? Plus the introduction, and a lot of text would have
to be rewritten to dedicate as much space to the tools as to organized
events and director's duties.

Just saying that the scope creep might make the statement less concise, and
QA tools may need to be a separate document.

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Pierre Béland  wrote:

> There is a constant increae of organized contributions from Task Managers
> on QA tools and I agree that this policy should include these various
> organized contributions.
>
> There should be a goal assure the follow-up of these various projects to
> assure a better collective coordination of the mapping.
>
> I am not sure that we could effectively have all organizers of Events
> create a wiki page. But organizers like for example the Geoweek, that
> invite to create local events should have a wiki page well documented. A
> section could be added to list the specific events + who organize them.
>
> The Changeset database is the place where we should be able to follow the
> various mapping projects. There is actually no common way to document the
> QA or TM host, the specific project and the various events connecting to
> the various projects. To document how these various coordination tools
> should be reported  on the changesets would facilitate the follow-up.
>
> Actually, not all instances of the Tasking Manager add an hashtag to
> document the host and project no. For QA tools, specific projects /
> missions are not documented either.
>
>
> Pierre
>
>
> Le mardi 21 novembre 2017 21:21:55 HNE, Yuri Astrakhan <
> yuriastrak...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>
> While this might not have been the intention, the
>
>   >  b) directed by a third party exactly what and how to contribute to
> OpenStreetMap
>
> can be applied to any "challenge style" sites such as the MapRoulette or
> Osmose.  I think there should either be a clarification about this, an
> additional discussion with the community, or a specific exclusion.  I know
> that the preamble is talking about paid editing, schools, and mapping
> events, but the text below it seems to have a wider scope.
> penstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Directed Editing Policy

[Pierre Béland]

There is a constant increae of organized contributions from Task Managers on QA 
tools and I agree that this policy should include these various organized 
contributions.

There should be a goal assure the follow-up of these various projects to assure 
a better collective coordination of the mapping.
I am not sure that we could effectively have all organizers of Events create a 
wiki page. But organizers like for example the Geoweek, that invite to create 
local events should have a wiki page well documented. A section could be added 
to list the specific events + who organize them. 
The Changeset database is the place where we should be able to follow the 
various mapping projects. There is actually no common way to document the QA or 
TM host, the specific project and the various events connecting to the various 
projects. To document how these various coordination tools should be reported  
on the changesets would facilitate the follow-up.
Actually, not all instances of the Tasking Manager add an hashtag to document 
the host and project no. For QA tools, specific projects / missions are not 
documented either. 

 
Pierre 
 

Le mardi 21 novembre 2017 21:21:55 HNE, Yuri Astrakhan 
 a écrit :  
 
 While this might not have been the intention, the

  >  b) directed by a third party exactly what and how to contribute to 
OpenStreetMap

can be applied to any "challenge style" sites such as the MapRoulette or 
Osmose.  I think there should either be a clarification about this, an 
additional discussion with the community, or a specific exclusion.  I know that 
the preamble is talking about paid editing, schools, and mapping events, but 
the text below it seems to have a wider scope.
penstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Directed Editing Policy

[Yuri Astrakhan]

While this might not have been the intention, the

  >  b) directed by a third party exactly what and how to contribute to
OpenStreetMap

can be applied to any "challenge style" sites such as the MapRoulette or
Osmose.  I think there should either be a clarification about this, an
additional discussion with the community, or a specific exclusion.  I know
that the preamble is talking about paid editing, schools, and mapping
events, but the text below it seems to have a wider scope.

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> > This policy applies as soon as someone is
> > directed by a third party exactly what and how to contribute to
> > OpenStreetMap.
>
> Maybe it would be a good idea to exclude small scale guided
> editing. For example my friend asked me to show how OSM worked.
>
> I showed him/her a map and asked to find something missing or mistake
> and later showed how to add this.
>
> It was clearly a guided editing as defined here - and I am not going to
> set up wiki pages etc before doing this the next time.
>
> ---
>
> Other situation where somebody wanted to to delete object from map and
> asked for help would be probably saved by and in "what and how" - (s)he
> had an idea what should be changed.
>
> ___
> 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] Directed Editing Policy

[Mateusz Konieczny]

> This policy applies as soon as someone is
> directed by a third party exactly what and how to contribute to
> OpenStreetMap. 

Maybe it would be a good idea to exclude small scale guided
editing. For example my friend asked me to show how OSM worked.

I showed him/her a map and asked to find something missing or mistake
and later showed how to add this.

It was clearly a guided editing as defined here - and I am not going to
set up wiki pages etc before doing this the next time.

---

Other situation where somebody wanted to to delete object from map and
asked for help would be probably saved by and in "what and how" - (s)he
had an idea what should be changed.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Directed Editing Policy

[Frederik Ramm]

I posted this announcement to osmf-talk 16 hours ago, where a little
discussion has already taken place. It has been pointed out to me that
it doesn't make sense to involve those who are not members in the
initial survey, but then cut them out later, so here's the announcement
below (even though, in the end, this is going to be a policy that the
OSMF board decides on). As always, discussing this on both lists at the
same time is going to be awkward but everyone should get a chance to
comment. If you have something to say, please do check the existing
thread on
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2017-November/004352.html
so that we don't unnecessarily duplicate things.

---

Hi,

   the DWG has prepared a policy on "Directed Editing" (former working
title "Organised Editing Policy"). Read it here:

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Directed_Editing_Policy

The policy picks up (but doesn't slavishly follow) the results of our
survey, where it became obvious that transparency and communications are
what mappers find most important about organised mapping efforts. The
policy replaces the somewhat fuzzy terms of "paid" and "organised"
editing with the concept of "directed editing", which is essentially
when you're required to edit OSM (because of work, a school assignment
etc) and/or when you're told by others exactly what and how to map.

The DWG is interested in feedback on this proposal. Are you currently
involved in some form of editing that would be covered by the policy?
Does the policy present an unnecessary obstacle for some activities? If
you have witnessed organised mapping efforts that caused problems -
would these problems have been avoided if people had adhered to the
proposed policy?

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk