Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
Jan 17, 2019, 5:51 PM by openstreet...@stereo.lu: > If you use a special source you can’t share, and the local community > understands and is cool with it, no one is in trouble. > What about someone not from local community attempting to check whatever data import was a copyright violation? AFAIK imports that are not giving source can be reverted at will, by anybody, without consultations (especially after attempt to clarify the copyright situation). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
Paul: In the Preamble of the guidelines it says "It's not a policy", but you say they are a policy. Cheers, Rafael. O 10/01/19 ás 21:34, Paul Norman escribiu: On 2019-01-10 10:19 a.m., Christoph Hormann wrote: Since it is on the OSM wiki and there is no statement indicating otherwise does this mean we can start improving the guidelines now?;-) If you can edit them to be closer to the text approved by the OSMF board ;) We just discussed this internally, the reason we've got them on the publicly editable wiki even though it's a policy is the number of links to/from the page make it more useful on the this wiki instead of the OSMF one. ___ 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] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
Hi Martijn, I was thinking of disclosed sources that can’t easily be shown, for example, imagery that doesn’t exist yet, or where you have to enter a special agreement to be given access, or out-of-copyright analogue sources that haven’t been digitised. We agree that this should be exceptional, and I expect the communities to have a low tolerance for bullshit on this :). Guillaume > On 17 Jan 2019, at 17:57, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > Hi Guillaume, > Thanks, that clarifies it for me. > Just to be clear, where you mention 'special sources' -- those would still > need to be vetted for compatibility with ODbL, and that would need to be done > in the open. I don't think anyone, individual or organization, should be able > to get away with using some undisclosed source even if the community somehow > is willing to accept this and turn a blind eye. Am I misunderstanding that > example? > -- > Martijn van Exel > m...@rtijn.org > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019, at 09:51, Guillaume Rischard wrote: >> Hi Martijn, >> >> Gladly. I seem to recall that this is also one of the points that you >> asked questions about during the board meeting. >> >> What we mean is that we’ll intervene for edits the community has issues >> with, and that we will not intervene for merely not following the >> guidelines. Maybe a few examples will help. >> >> If you organise a mapping activity and miss a topic when adapting one >> of the wiki template, and the local community has no issue with >> anything, no one is in trouble. >> >> If you use a special source you can’t share, and the local community >> understands and is cool with it, no one is in trouble. >> >> If you ignore a part of the guidelines and the community complains >> about that but agrees that the actual edits are excellent, we’ll kindly >> ask you to try to follow that part, but that’s probably it. For >> example, if you’re responding to a humanitarian emergency and don’t >> wait for 14 days. >> >> If there’s no wiki entry at all for an activity and the community >> complains about the edits, DWG would look into it. >> >> If the community is unhappy with some of the information it has >> received, and objects to the edits being made, and you ignore the >> objections, and the community complains, DWG would look into it. >> >> If you do everything by the book, but the local community is unhappy >> about the edits themselves and complains about it, DWG would look into >> it. But that’s very unlikely if you really did follow the guidelines. >> >> So the community truly has an effect on what DWG looks at. The >> guidelines are the best way we know to have a constructive relationship >> with the community, and a rich discussion is the most important part of >> it. >> >> Of course, following the guidelines also demonstrates good faith if the >> DWG needs to look into the edits. >> >> I hope this clarifies the intentions. >> >> Happy mapping >> >> Guillaume >> >>> On 10 Jan 2019, at 22:37, Martijn van Exel wrote: >>> >>> Hi Guillaume, DWG, >>> >>> Thanks for the conclusion. I asked in a different email on this thread to >>> post this on the OSMF web site, to have a permanent, immutable copy that we >>> can refer to when it comes to enforcing / disputes. >>> >>> I am a confused about the statement 'not following the organised editing >>> guidelines isn’t an offence per se'. I am trying to make a connection with >>> what you said in the October 2018 board meeting: 'The DWG is going to >>> enforce [the guidelines] just as it enforces anything else which comes from >>> community consensus'[1]. If the guidelines are going to be enforced, could >>> you add some clarity to the decision making process? Who decides when >>> non-compliance becomes an offense and on what criteria? How serious of an >>> offense, or how many, would it take to be banned? >>> >>> Martijn >>> >>> [1] >>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2018-10-18#Guidelines_contain_prescriptive_statements >>> >>> -- >>> Martijn van Exel >>> m...@rtijn.org >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 08:31, Guillaume Rischard wrote: The Data Working Group is happy to announce that our new Organised Editing Guidelines have now been officially put online on the wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines I'm happy to answer any questions here. In the meanwhile, here's my updated report. We at DWG are, first of all, thankful for all the constructive input we have received, from the advisory board, the humanitarian mapping initiatives and the mapping community. The organised editing guidelines took a lot of work to prepare. We received and integrated a lot of feedback to reflect consensus and existing good practice. We looked at what similar policies would exist, on OSM or in other organisations. I believe that no other project, open or propr
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
On Thursday 17 January 2019, Guillaume Rischard wrote: > > What we mean is that we’ll intervene for edits the community has > issues with, and that we will not intervene for merely not following > the guidelines. Note the guidelines themselves claim that they represent "consensus". Without opening the discussion on whether this is actually the case or not i would like to point out that you can't have it both ways. You cannot at the same time say: "These are standards of work on which there is broad agreement they should be followed" and also say they only need to be followed if there is someone positively insisting on them being followed. Now i know this is not what you said, you were only speaking of enforcement by the DWG. But you will see that organized actors will equate "not enforced" with "not binding" and a set of rules those for whom the rules are made for do not feel bound by cannot make a plausible claim to represent consensus. You can also look at it from a different perspective: Quite a lot of people have expressed the need to in the future evaluate if the Organised Editing Guidelines are working. And the only basis for such evaluation could be to measure if they are being followed. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
Hi Guillaume, Thanks, that clarifies it for me. Just to be clear, where you mention 'special sources' -- those would still need to be vetted for compatibility with ODbL, and that would need to be done in the open. I don't think anyone, individual or organization, should be able to get away with using some undisclosed source even if the community somehow is willing to accept this and turn a blind eye. Am I misunderstanding that example? -- Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org On Thu, Jan 17, 2019, at 09:51, Guillaume Rischard wrote: > Hi Martijn, > > Gladly. I seem to recall that this is also one of the points that you > asked questions about during the board meeting. > > What we mean is that we’ll intervene for edits the community has issues > with, and that we will not intervene for merely not following the > guidelines. Maybe a few examples will help. > > If you organise a mapping activity and miss a topic when adapting one > of the wiki template, and the local community has no issue with > anything, no one is in trouble. > > If you use a special source you can’t share, and the local community > understands and is cool with it, no one is in trouble. > > If you ignore a part of the guidelines and the community complains > about that but agrees that the actual edits are excellent, we’ll kindly > ask you to try to follow that part, but that’s probably it. For > example, if you’re responding to a humanitarian emergency and don’t > wait for 14 days. > > If there’s no wiki entry at all for an activity and the community > complains about the edits, DWG would look into it. > > If the community is unhappy with some of the information it has > received, and objects to the edits being made, and you ignore the > objections, and the community complains, DWG would look into it. > > If you do everything by the book, but the local community is unhappy > about the edits themselves and complains about it, DWG would look into > it. But that’s very unlikely if you really did follow the guidelines. > > So the community truly has an effect on what DWG looks at. The > guidelines are the best way we know to have a constructive relationship > with the community, and a rich discussion is the most important part of > it. > > Of course, following the guidelines also demonstrates good faith if the > DWG needs to look into the edits. > > I hope this clarifies the intentions. > > Happy mapping > > Guillaume > > > On 10 Jan 2019, at 22:37, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > > > Hi Guillaume, DWG, > > > > Thanks for the conclusion. I asked in a different email on this thread to > > post this on the OSMF web site, to have a permanent, immutable copy that we > > can refer to when it comes to enforcing / disputes. > > > > I am a confused about the statement 'not following the organised editing > > guidelines isn’t an offence per se'. I am trying to make a connection with > > what you said in the October 2018 board meeting: 'The DWG is going to > > enforce [the guidelines] just as it enforces anything else which comes from > > community consensus'[1]. If the guidelines are going to be enforced, could > > you add some clarity to the decision making process? Who decides when > > non-compliance becomes an offense and on what criteria? How serious of an > > offense, or how many, would it take to be banned? > > > > Martijn > > > > [1] > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2018-10-18#Guidelines_contain_prescriptive_statements > > > > -- > > Martijn van Exel > > m...@rtijn.org > > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 08:31, Guillaume Rischard wrote: > >> The Data Working Group is happy to announce that our new Organised > >> Editing Guidelines have now been officially put online on the wiki at > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines > >> > >> I'm happy to answer any questions here. In the meanwhile, here's my > >> updated report. > >> > >> We at DWG are, first of all, thankful for all the constructive input we > >> have received, from the advisory board, the humanitarian mapping > >> initiatives and the mapping community. > >> > >> The organised editing guidelines took a lot of work to prepare. We > >> received and integrated a lot of feedback to reflect consensus and > >> existing good practice. > >> > >> We looked at what similar policies would exist, on OSM or in other > >> organisations. I believe that no other project, open or proprietary, > >> has faced this exact issue before. On OSM, contributors generally > >> understand the current policies on automated edits and imports. We > >> wrote the organised editing guidelines in a similar way, while adopting > >> a slightly softer approach – not following the organised editing > >> guidelines isn’t an offence per se. Elsewhere, Wikipedia has numerous > >> policies some vaguely similar, but the problems they face are quite > >> different, and their policies tend to be a lot more complex.
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
Hi Martijn, Gladly. I seem to recall that this is also one of the points that you asked questions about during the board meeting. What we mean is that we’ll intervene for edits the community has issues with, and that we will not intervene for merely not following the guidelines. Maybe a few examples will help. If you organise a mapping activity and miss a topic when adapting one of the wiki template, and the local community has no issue with anything, no one is in trouble. If you use a special source you can’t share, and the local community understands and is cool with it, no one is in trouble. If you ignore a part of the guidelines and the community complains about that but agrees that the actual edits are excellent, we’ll kindly ask you to try to follow that part, but that’s probably it. For example, if you’re responding to a humanitarian emergency and don’t wait for 14 days. If there’s no wiki entry at all for an activity and the community complains about the edits, DWG would look into it. If the community is unhappy with some of the information it has received, and objects to the edits being made, and you ignore the objections, and the community complains, DWG would look into it. If you do everything by the book, but the local community is unhappy about the edits themselves and complains about it, DWG would look into it. But that’s very unlikely if you really did follow the guidelines. So the community truly has an effect on what DWG looks at. The guidelines are the best way we know to have a constructive relationship with the community, and a rich discussion is the most important part of it. Of course, following the guidelines also demonstrates good faith if the DWG needs to look into the edits. I hope this clarifies the intentions. Happy mapping Guillaume > On 10 Jan 2019, at 22:37, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > Hi Guillaume, DWG, > > Thanks for the conclusion. I asked in a different email on this thread to > post this on the OSMF web site, to have a permanent, immutable copy that we > can refer to when it comes to enforcing / disputes. > > I am a confused about the statement 'not following the organised editing > guidelines isn’t an offence per se'. I am trying to make a connection with > what you said in the October 2018 board meeting: 'The DWG is going to enforce > [the guidelines] just as it enforces anything else which comes from community > consensus'[1]. If the guidelines are going to be enforced, could you add some > clarity to the decision making process? Who decides when non-compliance > becomes an offense and on what criteria? How serious of an offense, or how > many, would it take to be banned? > > Martijn > > [1] > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2018-10-18#Guidelines_contain_prescriptive_statements > > -- > Martijn van Exel > m...@rtijn.org > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 08:31, Guillaume Rischard wrote: >> The Data Working Group is happy to announce that our new Organised >> Editing Guidelines have now been officially put online on the wiki at >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines >> >> I'm happy to answer any questions here. In the meanwhile, here's my >> updated report. >> >> We at DWG are, first of all, thankful for all the constructive input we >> have received, from the advisory board, the humanitarian mapping >> initiatives and the mapping community. >> >> The organised editing guidelines took a lot of work to prepare. We >> received and integrated a lot of feedback to reflect consensus and >> existing good practice. >> >> We looked at what similar policies would exist, on OSM or in other >> organisations. I believe that no other project, open or proprietary, >> has faced this exact issue before. On OSM, contributors generally >> understand the current policies on automated edits and imports. We >> wrote the organised editing guidelines in a similar way, while adopting >> a slightly softer approach – not following the organised editing >> guidelines isn’t an offence per se. Elsewhere, Wikipedia has numerous >> policies some vaguely similar, but the problems they face are quite >> different, and their policies tend to be a lot more complex. >> >> Internally, we looked back at past problematic edits. We carefully >> wrote the guidelines and defined the scope to prevent those problems >> without creating loopholes or negative incentives like encouraging >> salami tactics. They are not meant to apply to community activities >> like mapping parties between friends or making a presentation on OSM at >> a local club, but only to ‘sizeable, substantial’ activities. We wanted >> something that doesn’t scare casual events off while letting us >> regulate a geography class gone berserk or a misguided volunteer >> mapathon. >> >> We also didn’t want to set hard limits in stone since they would have >> to go back to the Board constantly if we need to refine exactly wh
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
Just saw Dorothea has now created a page for the Guidelines instead of a PDF: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines That is much better. Thanks. Further suggestion: Add a small note there that unofficial translations are available on the OSM wiki (Spanish and French so far). -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
On Monday 14 January 2019, Martijn van Exel wrote: > I am happy to see that the official version has now been published on > the OSMF web site. I changed > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines > accordingly. Seriously? This is the worst variant possible - link to a PDF stored somewhere on the OSMF wiki. So if i look for the guidelines i find this page, need to download and open a PDF where i find a link back to the OSM wiki for the organized editing activities documentation. And you can't link to individual sections of the document and without background knowledge about the wiki you don't have an edit history of the document where you can look how it changed over time. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
I am happy to see that the official version has now been published on the OSMF web site. I changed https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines accordingly. -- Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 13:59, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Hi, > > Could you please put the version that was approved up at > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines ? As > it is now, the text as approved is available at > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/1/13/Organised_editing_guidelines_version_20180908.pdf > (I assume this is the same text), but since it is an official OSMF document > now, it should really be discoverable under > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Policies_and_other_Documents. > > -- > Martijn van Exel > m...@rtijn.org > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 13:35, Paul Norman wrote: > > On 2019-01-10 10:19 a.m., Christoph Hormann wrote: > > > Since it is on the OSM wiki and there is no statement indicating > > > otherwise does this mean we can start improving the guidelines now?;-) > > > > > > If you can edit them to be closer to the text approved by the OSMF board ;) > > > > We just discussed this internally, the reason we've got them on the > > publicly editable wiki even though it's a policy is the number of links > > to/from the page make it more useful on the this wiki instead of the > > OSMF one. > > > > > > ___ > > 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] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
Hi Guillaume, DWG, Thanks for the conclusion. I asked in a different email on this thread to post this on the OSMF web site, to have a permanent, immutable copy that we can refer to when it comes to enforcing / disputes. I am a confused about the statement 'not following the organised editing guidelines isn’t an offence per se'. I am trying to make a connection with what you said in the October 2018 board meeting: 'The DWG is going to enforce [the guidelines] just as it enforces anything else which comes from community consensus'[1]. If the guidelines are going to be enforced, could you add some clarity to the decision making process? Who decides when non-compliance becomes an offense and on what criteria? How serious of an offense, or how many, would it take to be banned? Martijn [1] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2018-10-18#Guidelines_contain_prescriptive_statements -- Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 08:31, Guillaume Rischard wrote: > The Data Working Group is happy to announce that our new Organised > Editing Guidelines have now been officially put online on the wiki at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines > > I'm happy to answer any questions here. In the meanwhile, here's my > updated report. > > We at DWG are, first of all, thankful for all the constructive input we > have received, from the advisory board, the humanitarian mapping > initiatives and the mapping community. > > The organised editing guidelines took a lot of work to prepare. We > received and integrated a lot of feedback to reflect consensus and > existing good practice. > > We looked at what similar policies would exist, on OSM or in other > organisations. I believe that no other project, open or proprietary, > has faced this exact issue before. On OSM, contributors generally > understand the current policies on automated edits and imports. We > wrote the organised editing guidelines in a similar way, while adopting > a slightly softer approach – not following the organised editing > guidelines isn’t an offence per se. Elsewhere, Wikipedia has numerous > policies some vaguely similar, but the problems they face are quite > different, and their policies tend to be a lot more complex. > > Internally, we looked back at past problematic edits. We carefully > wrote the guidelines and defined the scope to prevent those problems > without creating loopholes or negative incentives like encouraging > salami tactics. They are not meant to apply to community activities > like mapping parties between friends or making a presentation on OSM at > a local club, but only to ‘sizeable, substantial’ activities. We wanted > something that doesn’t scare casual events off while letting us > regulate a geography class gone berserk or a misguided volunteer > mapathon. > > We also didn’t want to set hard limits in stone since they would have > to go back to the Board constantly if we need to refine exactly what > falls under the guidelines. > > Humanitarian activities deserve our fullest support. We therefore > adapted the guidelines for them, both implicitly, by requiring only a > best-effort approach, and explicitly, by exempting emergencies from the > two-week discussion period. Some humanitarian edits have been > problematic before, and the guidelines are easy to follow; a blanket > exemption would send the wrong signal. > > We saw the amount of corporate good will at SotM, the tensions in the > community, and the (dis)organised edits that mappers have referred to > us. It is good for everyone that those guidelines are now online on the > wiki. Good actors, existing and new, will be able to trust clear > expectations. The community will be confident that this is the > consensus that will be respected. Confused newcomers will get a > blueprint for a successful organised edit. > > We wrote guidelines that are easy to read and follow and provide > clarity on how good organised edits should run without having a > chilling effect on them. > > I’m glad that this project is now concluded, and am convinced that it > will be a good thing both for OSM and for the OSM community. > > Guillaume > ___ > 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] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
Hi, Could you please put the version that was approved up at https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines ? As it is now, the text as approved is available at https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/1/13/Organised_editing_guidelines_version_20180908.pdf (I assume this is the same text), but since it is an official OSMF document now, it should really be discoverable under https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Policies_and_other_Documents. -- Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 13:35, Paul Norman wrote: > On 2019-01-10 10:19 a.m., Christoph Hormann wrote: > > Since it is on the OSM wiki and there is no statement indicating > > otherwise does this mean we can start improving the guidelines now?;-) > > > If you can edit them to be closer to the text approved by the OSMF board ;) > > We just discussed this internally, the reason we've got them on the > publicly editable wiki even though it's a policy is the number of links > to/from the page make it more useful on the this wiki instead of the > OSMF one. > > > ___ > 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] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
On Thursday 10 January 2019, Paul Norman wrote: > > We just discussed this internally, the reason we've got them on the > publicly editable wiki even though it's a policy is the number of > links to/from the page make it more useful on the this wiki instead > of the OSMF one. I have no objections to that but i think you should either indicate that the page with the guideline should not be edited by anyone except OSMF board or DWG or mention that this version is being worked on continuously by the community and the authoritive version is to be found elsewhere. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
On 2019-01-10 10:19 a.m., Christoph Hormann wrote: Since it is on the OSM wiki and there is no statement indicating otherwise does this mean we can start improving the guidelines now?;-) If you can edit them to be closer to the text approved by the OSMF board ;) We just discussed this internally, the reason we've got them on the publicly editable wiki even though it's a policy is the number of links to/from the page make it more useful on the this wiki instead of the OSMF one. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
On Thursday 10 January 2019, Guillaume Rischard wrote: > The Data Working Group is happy to announce that our new Organised > Editing Guidelines have now been officially put online on the wiki at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines Since it is on the OSM wiki and there is no statement indicating otherwise does this mean we can start improving the guidelines now? ;-) By the way the examples are good work, i like them much better than the guidelines themselves. > Internally, we looked back at past problematic edits. We carefully > wrote the guidelines and defined the scope to prevent those problems > without creating loopholes or negative incentives like encouraging > salami tactics. We will see - you know i have doubts about this and i am particularly on the lookout for the first case of "let me through, it's an emergency". -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
Jan 10, 2019, 4:26 PM by openstreet...@stereo.lu: > I believe that no other project, open or proprietary, has faced this exact > issue before. > AFAIK Wikipedia had (and has) exactly the same problem - ranging from well meaning people (that frequently caused problem) through low-paid people who wanted to do their job ASAP to blatant vandal-spammers. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Organised Editing Guidelines now officially live
The Data Working Group is happy to announce that our new Organised Editing Guidelines have now been officially put online on the wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines I'm happy to answer any questions here. In the meanwhile, here's my updated report. We at DWG are, first of all, thankful for all the constructive input we have received, from the advisory board, the humanitarian mapping initiatives and the mapping community. The organised editing guidelines took a lot of work to prepare. We received and integrated a lot of feedback to reflect consensus and existing good practice. We looked at what similar policies would exist, on OSM or in other organisations. I believe that no other project, open or proprietary, has faced this exact issue before. On OSM, contributors generally understand the current policies on automated edits and imports. We wrote the organised editing guidelines in a similar way, while adopting a slightly softer approach – not following the organised editing guidelines isn’t an offence per se. Elsewhere, Wikipedia has numerous policies some vaguely similar, but the problems they face are quite different, and their policies tend to be a lot more complex. Internally, we looked back at past problematic edits. We carefully wrote the guidelines and defined the scope to prevent those problems without creating loopholes or negative incentives like encouraging salami tactics. They are not meant to apply to community activities like mapping parties between friends or making a presentation on OSM at a local club, but only to ‘sizeable, substantial’ activities. We wanted something that doesn’t scare casual events off while letting us regulate a geography class gone berserk or a misguided volunteer mapathon. We also didn’t want to set hard limits in stone since they would have to go back to the Board constantly if we need to refine exactly what falls under the guidelines. Humanitarian activities deserve our fullest support. We therefore adapted the guidelines for them, both implicitly, by requiring only a best-effort approach, and explicitly, by exempting emergencies from the two-week discussion period. Some humanitarian edits have been problematic before, and the guidelines are easy to follow; a blanket exemption would send the wrong signal. We saw the amount of corporate good will at SotM, the tensions in the community, and the (dis)organised edits that mappers have referred to us. It is good for everyone that those guidelines are now online on the wiki. Good actors, existing and new, will be able to trust clear expectations. The community will be confident that this is the consensus that will be respected. Confused newcomers will get a blueprint for a successful organised edit. We wrote guidelines that are easy to read and follow and provide clarity on how good organised edits should run without having a chilling effect on them. I’m glad that this project is now concluded, and am convinced that it will be a good thing both for OSM and for the OSM community. Guillaume ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
