Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: > > People like simple rules because they're simple. But when you go to > figure out what the rules mean, you have to interpret them. What is > "agreement"? Agreement with you and your buddies as to how to tag? > Agreement with existing tags? Agrement with the documentation in the > wiki? Agreement with some book that somebody wrote once? Agreement > with Steve Coast (all hail the master)? > > If you don't start with good rules, you'll have to invent them, under > pressure and with people yelling at you. Which is kinda what we're > doing here, now. > > Agreement should mean among all relevant parties. That said, I think the key is more in the "pursue" than the specific "agreement." If you're *pursuing* agreement... then you're doing all the things you've mentioned... checking the wiki, checking with others, checking IRC, documenting what you're doing so that people can understand why you did what you did, entering into an agreement with the willingness to accept that your way may not be the way that the community accepts. And, in those cases, you're still free to make your own tags, etc., just don't harm other peoples' (and the community's) efforts. The other positive attribute of pursuing agreement is that it mitigates a bully's ability to use pursuit of the truth as a cudgel for braining other mappers. Other things about the rules you've suggested - if the first rule involves the acronym DWG, then we're probably off to the wrong start. It implies that you need to be ready to escalate to the highest levels, rather than seeking more distributed and federated agreement. The second rule is too specific - what about disputes between 2 local mappers or between 2 remote mappers? I do agree, however, that sometimes, inventing rules under pressure can be the way to go. I do hope we can do it without yelling! (whoops) : ) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Jeff Meyer writes:
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
>
> >
> > Right. So what do you think of the set of rules that I posted a bit ago?
> >
> Well... I like mine better. ('natch!) "Pursue the truth & agreement & do
> no harm." is a little easier to remember and covers all the cases covered
> by the 5 rules put forth.
>
> It seems that, if followed, rules 3-5 will almost certainly create more
> confusion than they resolve.
People like simple rules because they're simple. But when you go to
figure out what the rules mean, you have to interpret them. What is
"agreement"? Agreement with you and your buddies as to how to tag?
Agreement with existing tags? Agrement with the documentation in the
wiki? Agreement with some book that somebody wrote once? Agreement
with Steve Coast (all hail the master)?
If you don't start with good rules, you'll have to invent them, under
pressure and with people yelling at you. Which is kinda what we're
doing here, now.
--
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Please see notes below:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
>
> Right. So what do you think of the set of rules that I posted a bit ago?
>
> Well... I like mine better. ('natch!) "Pursue the truth & agreement & do
no harm." is a little easier to remember and covers all the cases covered
by the 5 rules put forth.
It seems that, if followed, rules 3-5 will almost certainly create more
confusion than they resolve.
There *is* standardization -- the set of Key and Tag descriptions in
> the Wiki. Everybody should edit the way they describe. If they are
> ambiguous, then you should look at the way people are using the tags,
> and put that into the wiki. If people aren't tagging consistently,
> then you should ask for help.
>
> The whole point is that everything in the database should have a clear
> meaning. It's okay if there are two different ways to enter the same
> thing. Yes, that makes life harder on data consumers, but as long as
> they can understand what a tag means, they can figure out what that
> means for their usage of the map. Chances are good that
> highway=path/bicycle=yes and highway=cycleway will get rendered the
> same way.
I can vouch only for my own perspective, which is that there does not
appear (to me) that everything has clear meaning and that there are many
flavors of standardization. The fact that there are 2 (or more) different
ways to enter the same thing makes meaning less, not more, clear. I do
think this deserves its own thread & will create such a thread (assuming
it's not a retread rethread), but not tonight.
> --
> --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
> Crynwr supports open source software
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
--
Jeff Meyer
Global World History Atlas
www.gwhat.org
j...@gwhat.org
206-676-2347
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Jeff Meyer writes: > - An overarching code of behavior could be very helpful to empower the less > aggressive mapper. Maybe something simple like: Pursue the truth & > agreement & do no harm. It gives the oppressed some simple question to ask > the difficult mapper. Each of the segments of the code could be defined > separately. > -- It seems to me that changing tags without a resolution of truth in a > community is clearly destructive Right. So what do you think of the set of rules that I posted a bit ago? > - The concept of any tag being ok is exciting for many of us, but also a > little scary to many newcomers, who would like to be sure we are doing > things properly. So, I think more standardization in tag convention would > be helpful, but that's probably fodder for another (and many older) threads. There *is* standardization -- the set of Key and Tag descriptions in the Wiki. Everybody should edit the way they describe. If they are ambiguous, then you should look at the way people are using the tags, and put that into the wiki. If people aren't tagging consistently, then you should ask for help. The whole point is that everything in the database should have a clear meaning. It's okay if there are two different ways to enter the same thing. Yes, that makes life harder on data consumers, but as long as they can understand what a tag means, they can figure out what that means for their usage of the map. Chances are good that highway=path/bicycle=yes and highway=cycleway will get rendered the same way. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Anthony writes: > I agree that DWG has the authority to act, here. But as I understand it, > the authority of DWG comes from OSMF, not from the OSM community. The DWG is specifically asking if it should have the authority to act. Please read the beginning message of this thread. > Additionally, now would be a good time to work toward more formal standards > for tagging. While I disagree that mappers should be bound by unwritten > convention, I do think it would be useful to adopt RFC-style agreed upon > tagging standards. No. Never have, don't need to. What we *do* need are several rules for tagging: 1) Don't change somebody else's edit unless you are acting on evidence you can produce to the DWG. 2) If you're remote, don't change somebody's edit if they're local. Instead, ask them if you should make a change. 3) Tag according to the documentation in the wiki. 4) Don't change the documentation in the wiki. 5) Document how you tag in the wiki (which is only necessary if #3 or #4 keep you from tagging in the manner you believe correct). These rules would reduce the amount of coordination needed and conflict produced betweeen editors. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > Martijn van Exel writes: > > 1) I don't think it is a good idea to come up with a code of conduct > > as a response to particular cases. > > Hard cases make bad law, yes. But it's not a difficult decision to say > "Don't change other people's edits unless you can show that they are > editing in variance to convention" or "Don't change an edit made by a > local person unless you have ground truth to show that they are wrong, > and can present that evidence to anyone who questions your edit." But... the converse can be somewhat helpful. Particular cases can be reasonable tests of general rules and this seems to be a pretty generic type of conflict that should be easily resolvable. i.e.: user a and user b disagree and cannot resolve their differences. Their discussion is isolated that not enough other people or community are around to help moderate the differences and reach a solution (not necessarily a compromise). What to do? My primary interest, as a newbie, is the impact of these difficult mappers on recruitment of new mappers. If the single difficult mapper is having a visible conflict with one non-difficult mapper, how many negative experiences with other non-difficult mappers aren't surfacing? The faster you can reassure the new mappers that difficult mappers are the exception and not the rule, and that the community is friendly and supportive, the better. My noob perspectives on this particular situation: - An overarching code of behavior could be very helpful to empower the less aggressive mapper. Maybe something simple like: Pursue the truth & agreement & do no harm. It gives the oppressed some simple question to ask the difficult mapper. Each of the segments of the code could be defined separately. -- It seems to me that changing tags without a resolution of truth in a community is clearly destructive - The concept of any tag being ok is exciting for many of us, but also a little scary to many newcomers, who would like to be sure we are doing things properly. So, I think more standardization in tag convention would be helpful, but that's probably fodder for another (and many older) threads. Apologies in advance if I've missed any existing information that covers these points! Thanks, Jeff -- Jeff Meyer Global World History Atlas www.gwhat.org j...@gwhat.org 206-676-2347 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Russ Nelson wrote: > Martijn van Exel writes: > > But to come back to Richard Weait's original questions: Yes, I think > > the DWG should act on behalf of the US community here even though it > > seems to be a matter of conduct instead of a pure data issue. > > I agree also. I agree that DWG has the authority to act, here. But as I understand it, the authority of DWG comes from OSMF, not from the OSM community. If DWG wants to act on behalf of the OSM community, then their members should be appointed by the OSM community, not by OSMF. Additionally, now would be a good time to work toward more formal standards for tagging. While I disagree that mappers should be bound by unwritten convention, I do think it would be useful to adopt RFC-style agreed upon tagging standards. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Martijn van Exel writes: > 1) I don't think it is a good idea to come up with a code of conduct > as a response to particular cases. Hard cases make bad law, yes. But it's not a difficult decision to say "Don't change other people's edits unless you can show that they are editing in variance to convention" or "Don't change an edit made by a local person unless you have ground truth to show that they are wrong, and can present that evidence to anyone who questions your edit." > But to come back to Richard Weait's original questions: Yes, I think > the DWG should act on behalf of the US community here even though it > seems to be a matter of conduct instead of a pure data issue. I agree also. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Anthony writes: > It depends on whether or not the key you are replacing the old key with is > better. I already explained why it doesn't, and you haven't addressed that explanation. I see no point in continuing to discuss this with you. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Anthony wrote: > Moderation is one thing. Important messages can still go through, if > someone is moderated. But in this case he apparently was kicked off the > list completely. I'm not sure what behavior caused such a severe sanction, > but if it was warranted, then the person shouldn't be allowed to edit > either. > > Seconded. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 11/02/2012 01:11 PM, Anthony wrote: > > I don't get it. If the problem is that you don't like the way he edits, > > how is blocking him from the mailing list, but allowing him to edit, the > > proper solution? > > The times that I have moderated folks on this list it was for their > behavior on this list. It had nothing to do with their editing except > that the list discussions tended to have _originated_ from editing > problems. > Moderation is one thing. Important messages can still go through, if someone is moderated. But in this case he apparently was kicked off the list completely. I'm not sure what behavior caused such a severe sanction, but if it was warranted, then the person shouldn't be allowed to edit either. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 11/02/2012 09:09 AM, Anthony wrote: > > Might this not be part of the problem? Why do we allow someone to edit > > but not to contribute to the mailing list? Doesn't that promote exactly > > the type of behavior that some people are criticizing (i.e. editing > > without discussion). > > No, I don't think so. > > These problems persisted during times when Nathan was fully welcomed to > this list. His presence on the list did not help avoid or resolve them. > I don't get it. If the problem is that you don't like the way he edits, how is blocking him from the mailing list, but allowing him to edit, the proper solution? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
On 11/02/2012 01:11 PM, Anthony wrote: > I don't get it. If the problem is that you don't like the way he edits, > how is blocking him from the mailing list, but allowing him to edit, the > proper solution? The times that I have moderated folks on this list it was for their behavior on this list. It had nothing to do with their editing except that the list discussions tended to have _originated_ from editing problems. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
On 11/02/2012 09:09 AM, Anthony wrote: > Might this not be part of the problem? Why do we allow someone to edit > but not to contribute to the mailing list? Doesn't that promote exactly > the type of behavior that some people are criticizing (i.e. editing > without discussion). No, I don't think so. These problems persisted during times when Nathan was fully welcomed to this list. His presence on the list did not help avoid or resolve them. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
On 11/02/2012 05:43 AM, James Mast wrote: > Anthony, I just got a message back from this person and he told me he > was "Forcibly unsubscribed" from here on talk-us. That's pretty much a > ban IMO. nerou...@gmail.com is banned from subscribing to talk-us. The archives are open, though, so anyone can at least read what's happening on here. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
First, I think Martijn's points have all been right on. 1) I don't think it is a good idea to come up with a code of conduct as a response to particular cases. When there's an actual dispute on the table that might be addressed by an as yet imaginary code, we are in reactionary mode and it will be really hard to think outside that box and devise a code that will address future cases well. Also, it weakens the position of the arbitrator if all of a sudden a code is conjured up out of nothing and used to make a point in the arbitration. I agree entirely. As nerds (which I'm assuming many are), we enjoy the intellectual challenge of solving the general problem neatly. But that's a huge effort, opens up all sorts of issues, and distracts from the real question of whether a small number of individuals are egregiously not playing well with others. A detailed code would make sense if we had lots of people acting in ways that are near the edge of acceptability under the code, and we thought those people would adjust the way they act because of the code. From my experience, that isn't even close to the situation in OSM. Aside from the current discussion, I've only seen one instance of a mapper acting in a way that caused angst (when I considered myself a local). It was someone new, who was overenthusiastic about an import (of data that made sense to be imported). Basically he underestimated how hard it was to do right, but as the process went on he listened to people pointing out the problems, and he slogged through fixing it - and met others in person and talked about it. The map is better for this person's work, and I think all the rest of the locals agree. In this the person was 100% acting in good faith, we talked among ourselves, and we're all fine with how it came out. No code was necessary, and we didn't even think trying to talk to one, or about DWG. All that said, I think Richard's first draft at a code is entirely reasonable. Here's a normative statement that's trying to avoid being a code, but captures the top-level sentiment (point 2 is probably deferring to locals): Mappers should work collaboratively within the OSM community for the benefit of the map data, the tools, and the community. pgp5a7IRfqy1l.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:43 AM, James Mast wrote: > Anthony, I just got a message back from this person and he told me he was > "Forcibly unsubscribed" from here on talk-us. That's pretty much a ban IMO. We are talking about a pattern of behavior, not a specific person. There are several people who have exhibited this pattern of behavior, and we are discussing how we, as a community, want to handle this behavior. No one has made any specific accusations against any one individual, rather, we are discussing how to create a structure around that process. - Serge ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:22:35 -0400 > From: o...@inbox.org > To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com > CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org; rich...@weait.com; d...@osmfoundation.org; > g...@ir.bbn.com > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s) > > I'm not sure there is anyone *banned* from the lists. On moderation, > maybe, but so long as the emails are eventually going through that > seems okay. > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:16 PM, James Mast wrote: > > If I think I know who this is all about, maybe he should be un-banned from > > talk-us so he might be able to defend himself at least? > > > > --James > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us Anthony, I just got a message back from this person and he told me he was "Forcibly unsubscribed" from here on talk-us. That's pretty much a ban IMO. -- James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Anthony writes: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > > > Anthony writes: > > > The key question is, which key was right? > > > > No. Without getting too specific, my key was one of the most > > commonly-used keys, while e's key was one e invented. > > Without getting specific, how can we figure out who was right? You don't need to know who the person is, nor do the keys matter except as generalities. If I identify the keys, then I identify the person, and there is no need to identify the person. This is not about personalities, but is instead about behavior. The information that I've given should be sufficient to answer this question: Is it acceptable to change a widely used key into a key invented by the editor? I say that it is not, and that any editor doing so should be censured, and their edits turned into acceptable edits (creating a new tag with the editor's key). I think it is reasonable for the community (in this case talk-us) to come to a conclusion. If the editor chooses to separate themself from the community through continued misbehavior, that is their choice, and the community will help them abide by that separation. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > Anthony writes: > > The key question is, which key was right? > > No. Without getting too specific, my key was one of the most > commonly-used keys, while e's key was one e invented. Without getting specific, how can we figure out who was right? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
These guidelines are all nice, but I have two reservations about where this discussion is headed. 1) I don't think it is a good idea to come up with a code of conduct as a response to particular cases. When there's an actual dispute on the table that might be addressed by an as yet imaginary code, we are in reactionary mode and it will be really hard to think outside that box and devise a code that will address future cases well. Also, it weakens the position of the arbitrator if all of a sudden a code is conjured up out of nothing and used to make a point in the arbitration. 2) I have zero experience with devising codes of conduct, but isn't it really hard to encode the essence of good behavior, for the U.S mappers subculture no less, in a few paragraphs? I'm not saying we can't try, but I don't see what is so specific about our case. Couldn't a case like this arise anywhere? (Again, it's hard to talk about it without knowing too many specifics.) Also, we already have a code of conduct for automated edits, which ends with: 'The data working group will investigate and act on issues which cannot be resolved through the above course of action'. If this code of conduct was going to have a similar role in the process, wouldn't we end up in the same place with it as where we are without? With the DWG having to deal with this because the code of conduct was not followed? Again, the only way I see this going anywhere is if we can enforce such a code. For that, it needs to be much more specific (how many violations? what do all these terms mean?), and moreover I think we do need to think about leveraging the growth of contributors in the community more. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but with formalized stewardship of experienced editors in an area (Sam Iacullo hinted at this in his own thread about this), based on editing history and possibly also personal preference, combined with limited scope of action for beginners, we can build a stronger community where we won't have spend this much time and energy on a few warmongers. It's not like we have to start from scratch with all this, we already have OWL codebase for monitoring areas, and ideas[1] and code[2] for determining stewards based on edit history. But to come back to Richard Weait's original questions: Yes, I think the DWG should act on behalf of the US community here even though it seems to be a matter of conduct instead of a pure data issue. Maybe we should have an Ethics WG for these kinds of cases, but as it is, we don't, and I think the DWG is the closest thing to it that we do have. As for guidance, I say we collect a good sample of private interactions between this mapper and his 'local' victims, which should provide enough material in itself to exclude this element from our community. If we need more, Richard Welty's list here would make a good start. I would definitely add something like: 'If documented and repeated attempts at reaching a consensus have been made, and a resolution cannot be reached, a documented case may be filed with the DWG, who will rule based on the facts presented.' This should probably be followed by possible outcomes, but I don't know what those are. Martijn [1] http://de.straba.us/2011/07/17/mvp-osm-my-presentation-for-state-of-the-map-europe-2011/ [2] https://github.com/napo/mvp-osm - I have yet to try this though. Martijn On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 11/1/12 12:01 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> >> >> If, for example, the US community would express a clear preference for >> local mappers having their way in tagging, then a tagging bully would >> clearly and visibly operate outside of the rules of accepted behaviour, and >> all his explanations about why his tagging is correct would be moot. > > i'd like to take a positive approach to this negative topic. here are some > potential guidelines for US mappers > to consider: > > OpenStreetMap is a community. Communities work best when their members > communicate > and work towards consensus. > > The work of local mappers is to be respected. They have local knowledge of > value. > > If you disagree with the work of another mapper, please communicate with > them. Start with > polite, private communication. Do not start out by calling them out in > public. > > Do not engage in edit wars. > > Furthermore, do not threaten, either explicitly or by implication, to engage > in an edit > war to get your way. > > True consensus is when most members of a community agree. Do not yell loudly > in order > to disrupt a building consensus. Accept that sometimes you don't get your > way. > > Keep your eye on the goal. Do not let disagreements get in the way of > producing the > best map ever. > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- martijn van exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ T
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Anthony writes: > The key question is, which key was right? No. Without getting too specific, my key was one of the most commonly-used keys, while e's key was one e invented. The situation was: a=b e changed it to: c=b where e should have done: a=b c=b and left this commonplace a= tagging alone. Now, it's quite possible and reasonable for someone to change it to: a=d c=b which would have caused (without e's edit) the 'b' information to be lost. But as it was, with e's edit, the 'b' information was completely lost from most renders! And because the renderers have not picked up on e's key, it's STILL lost. The key is more than two years old. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
On 11/1/12 12:01 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: If, for example, the US community would express a clear preference for local mappers having their way in tagging, then a tagging bully would clearly and visibly operate outside of the rules of accepted behaviour, and all his explanations about why his tagging is correct would be moot. i'd like to take a positive approach to this negative topic. here are some potential guidelines for US mappers to consider: OpenStreetMap is a community. Communities work best when their members communicate and work towards consensus. The work of local mappers is to be respected. They have local knowledge of value. If you disagree with the work of another mapper, please communicate with them. Start with polite, private communication. Do not start out by calling them out in public. Do not engage in edit wars. Furthermore, do not threaten, either explicitly or by implication, to engage in an edit war to get your way. True consensus is when most members of a community agree. Do not yell loudly in order to disrupt a building consensus. Accept that sometimes you don't get your way. Keep your eye on the goal. Do not let disagreements get in the way of producing the best map ever. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Hi, On 01.11.2012 01:18, Greg Troxel wrote: So overall, I would say that if user A complains about user B making non-local objectionable changes, and that's the only complaint, then it's really hard to tell. It could be that the non-local user in some cases is right in a sense (consider bringing a jury of 6 seasoned mappers to the area for a survey and pub discussion about what they'd do, and see how that comes out). Yes. We do indeed occasionally have local "tagging bullies" who closely monitor everything mapped in their region and disagree with most of it, and there's probably a limit to how much we can let them dictate for their area. Reasonable people, more or less by definition, do not provoke complaints by large numbers of other reasonable people. Indeed. All that said, it's not clear that the DWG is the right group. But I think OSM needs a body of elders (who have the respect of the community as reasonable and fair people) to deal with complaints of behavior that doesn't meet community interaction norms. DWG currently has a (more or less self-selected) mandate of dealing with disputes, vandalism, and bots/imports. The problem we're talking about here often arises from a dispute but in the end it's not the dispute itself, but the lack of civility in dealing with it that leads to DWG involvement. Even though we're one world-wide project, communities in different countries are different and the social norms for interaction may be too. I think I speak for most of my colleagues at DWG when I say that we would very much like to be able to refer any cases that are essentially about manners, about getting people to talk to each other in a way that behooves a community project, to some regional or national "body of elders" familiar with the local language and social norms. Just as we're trying to here ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Hi, On 01.11.2012 04:26, Serge Wroclawski wrote: To your question of technical means; you're right that adding technical means to entirely prevent a malicious user are difficult to put in place, but they are not impossible, but if it's just a handful of troublemakers, it's best to address that, rather than create an entire engineering task around it. +1 - Martijn does have a point but the problem we are currently having is not that people can circumvent rules - it is that people can boldly claim that they are right. Kind of "I've been here for 10 years and I have 5 million edits so please excuse me while my bot tramples all over your work, and don't you dare challenge me because I know the only true tagging rules and anything anybody else says is stupid." In the past, whenever DWG has actually tried to wade into such cases, we were quickly bogged down by the question of whether a certain way of tagging is factually correct or not. But it turns out that factual correctness is not the issue - it is the way it is discussed or asserted by people. If, for example, the US community would express a clear preference for local mappers having their way in tagging, then a tagging bully would clearly and visibly operate outside of the rules of accepted behaviour, and all his explanations about why his tagging is correct would be moot. It is hard to argue from authority if your account is two days old because your previous one has been blocked for bullying ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
I'm not sure there is anyone *banned* from the lists. On moderation, maybe, but so long as the emails are eventually going through that seems okay. On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:16 PM, James Mast wrote: > If I think I know who this is all about, maybe he should be un-banned from > talk-us so he might be able to defend himself at least? > > --James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > So, as a generalized example of a specific instance that I have in > mind, I added some tags to some ways which reflected data that anybody > could verify from multiple sources with a little bit of research. I > didn't put a source= tag because the source was from USGS topo data -- > unquestionably public domain, backed up positionally with USGS ortho > photos. Sometimes the data came from research, other times from site > visits. A reasonably safe, uncontroversial edit. > > DUM felt it necessary to change the key of the tag to a different key, > thus violating rule #1 by *changing* rather than *adding* a new tag > with e's new key and the value I put into the tag. To make matters > worse, this key is one that e invented and seems to be the sole user > of. > > DUM has made this change to hundreds of ways that I know of, and > probably thousands or more across the country, and without any > consultation with others as far as I can find. That's a little bit too general. The key question is, which key was right? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > DWG has the administrative tools to block an account. What we don't > have is a clear rule stating that we can block an account for "being > difficult". > > Questions for the US mapping community: > > 1) Do you want DWG to act on your behalf on this matter and or similar > matters? No. DWG should act on behalf of OSMF. It's their servers, not ours. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Greg Troxel writes: > First, there's the notion that the local mappers should have priority in > deciding how things should be tagged. I don't mean that one shouldn't > make non-local edits - I do that after visiting places. But I don't > make edits that I think a local might object to. Me too. Whenever I see contributions which are obviously made by a local (e.g. stores), I always edit more carefully. I don't want to offend a local mapper because 1) that might discourage them, and 2) I wouldn't want somebody non-local to Potsdam editing here willy-nilly. > So if there's a disagreement, and the results lopsidedly reflect > one user's view just because that user is far more insistent on > making changes and arguing about them, that's a bad outcome, Yup. You risk letting the decision go to the person with the most free time, who is not necessarily the most correct person. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Martijn, Thank you for this thoughtful and wise-reaching response. I think that the kinds of issues you address in your email do deserve consideration and contemplation, but most are not the focus of this discussion we're having right now, which is the role of DWG in handling what are essentially conduct issues. To your question of technical means; you're right that adding technical means to entirely prevent a malicious user are difficult to put in place, but they are not impossible, but if it's just a handful of troublemakers, it's best to address that, rather than create an entire engineering task around it. I think the focus right now are questions of community, rather than technology. - Serge ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
> From: Martijn van Exel [mailto:m...@rtijn.org] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:18 PM > To: Richard Weait > Cc: Serge Wroclawski; d...@osmfoundation.org; Ian Dees; talk- > u...@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s) > > It's hard to come up with guidelines when you don't know the specifics, > but let me throw in some thoughts based on what I read: > 1) If you were to take administrative action on an account, blocking it > either temporarily or permanently, how do you prevent the same person > (or group of people, or bot, using the account) from starting fresh > under a new guise? My limited knowledge of these matters suggests that > this would be a Hard Problem. If it is, blocking accounts is a toothless > measure that doesn't even deserve all that much consideration. If it > isn't, I'm curious to know how it works, but that's possibly for another > thread. I am reasonably confident that the means exist to block someone and keep them blocked. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
James Mast writes: > If I think I know who this is all about, maybe he should be un-banned from > talk-us so he might be able to defend himself at least? --James No. This isn't about a person. This is about a style of mapping. If you think that only one person is capable of defending this style of mapping, then perhaps it's just as well that that style gets banned. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
If I think I know who this is all about, maybe he should be un-banned from talk-us so he might be able to defend himself at least? --James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Given what I've observed and heard about from other mappers, I am not particularly surprised to hear that the DWG has been getting complaints (although I have not filed a complaint myself). I think it's helpful to talk about the general problem, separately from any identities. My impression is that a fair part of the genesis of the issue is disagreement about tagging highways. We have an established, older view that primary is for US highways or roads that are as important culturally, secondary is for state highways or roads of similar importance, and tertiary for roads that are less important than secondary but that form a key part of the interconnecting grid (between towns, across cities). There is another view which promotes labeling roads at higher classifications. Given that, I think there are two problems that arise in terms of how people collaborate (or not) on how to improve the map. OSM is fundamentally a group effort and how people feel about their participation and interaction with others is very important for the health of the project. First, there's the notion that the local mappers should have priority in deciding how things should be tagged. I don't mean that one shouldn't make non-local edits - I do that after visiting places. But I don't make edits that I think a local might object to. When I see something done by a local mapper that I think should be different, I message them and ask about it (and sometimes go ahead if I don't hear back). I've met a fair number of the active people in Massachusetts in person, and talked with several others in email. We confer among ourselves sometimes, and have in the past discussed issues with non-local mappers adjusting tagging. We also had the "highway=path foot=designated vs highway=footway" discussion over beer, pleasantly (regarding differing choices among local mappers, which I am quite sure DWG never heard complaints about). Second, there's a slippery slope to what "edit war" means. Generally, it takes two to have an edit war, and for that to happen, both have to be willing to keep making the change, which is a combination of doing that even though they should realize it's getting to edit war, and caring enough to put energy into it, instead of deciding to focus on other hobbies. So if there's a disagreement, and the results lopsidedly reflect one user's view just because that user is far more insistent on making changes and arguing about them, that's a bad outcome, and in my mind just as bad as an edit war if not worse, just less obvious. So overall, I would say that if user A complains about user B making non-local objectionable changes, and that's the only complaint, then it's really hard to tell. It could be that the non-local user in some cases is right in a sense (consider bringing a jury of 6 seasoned mappers to the area for a survey and pub discussion about what they'd do, and see how that comes out). Many of these calls are not particularly important in the grand scheme of things; local users feeling like someone far away is being pushy has a bigger impact on the project. On the other hand, If 20 users (not acting in concert) all complain similarly about B, then there really is a problem -- most people don't want to complain to authority in a group like osm, so if 20 complain probably 100 feel that way. Reasonable people, more or less by definition, do not provoke complaints by large numbers of other reasonable people. A serious concern is people being driven away because they find participating in the community unpleasant; this is the concept in open source of "poisonous people". I've certainly run into this a bit in openstreetmap. In the open source world (I participate in NetBSD), it seems that people who know each other in person are much more likely to be reasonable on the net. The local group concept helps greatly, but it doesn't address the distant armchair editor (especially if that person isn't part of his or her in-person community). All that said, it's not clear that the DWG is the right group. But I think OSM needs a body of elders (who have the respect of the community as reasonable and fair people) to deal with complaints of behavior that doesn't meet community interaction norms. I certainly don't want to endorse some sort of global thought police, and would want such an authority to tread lightly. But the fact that the DWG is moved to write to talk-us "has had a high number of complaints about a small number of mappers" indicates to me that we have a significant social problem, and as I see it DWG is the least inappropriate WG to handle it. Greg (osm user gdt) pgp2tXINGSgGq.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Richard Weait writes: > I would prefer to discuss this in general, and in the open. Okay. In general, then, I have said that I believe the proper way to edit is to not disturb anything that anybody else does[1]. That should be rule #1, yet DUM[2] (Difficult USA Mapper) seems to feel that e[3] can change other people's tags any way e wants without consulting with them. So, as a generalized example of a specific instance that I have in mind, I added some tags to some ways which reflected data that anybody could verify from multiple sources with a little bit of research. I didn't put a source= tag because the source was from USGS topo data -- unquestionably public domain, backed up positionally with USGS ortho photos. Sometimes the data came from research, other times from site visits. A reasonably safe, uncontroversial edit. DUM felt it necessary to change the key of the tag to a different key, thus violating rule #1 by *changing* rather than *adding* a new tag with e's new key and the value I put into the tag. To make matters worse, this key is one that e invented and seems to be the sole user of. DUM has made this change to hundreds of ways that I know of, and probably thousands or more across the country, and without any consultation with others as far as I can find. That would be okay except that e violated rule #1, the Prime Directive. By the way, I am not one of the complaintants, but I will be happy to enter a complaint about this specific edit, which has detracted from the value of the map for me (at least, and I speculate others). [1] I add to that: document how you tagged, don't change documentation written by someone else, and then tag according to the documentation. [2] Hey, I didn't make the name up! [3] Neutral gender. Hey, it *could* be wonderchook, you never know. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Account restrictions could be of help for new mappers making large mistakes. IE dragging a large selection, destroying relations ect. Pushing good tutorials on new users would probably do more though. Regardless restrictions only help minimize the accidental type issues but do very little for edit wars or malicious edits. Dale On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > It's hard to come up with guidelines when you don't know the > specifics, but let me throw in some thoughts based on what I read: > 1) If you were to take administrative action on an account, blocking > it either temporarily or permanently, how do you prevent the same > person (or group of people, or bot, using the account) from starting > fresh under a new guise? My limited knowledge of these matters > suggests that this would be a Hard Problem. If it is, blocking > accounts is a toothless measure that doesn't even deserve all that > much consideration. If it isn't, I'm curious to know how it works, but > that's possibly for another thread. > 2) From past discussions about this I gathered that these particular > accounts that inspire a lot of controversy and complaints usually show > a high prolificness - higher than reasonable for a human mapper. > Possibly, there are also particular discernible patterns to their > edits? Is this something that can be quantified into editing > thresholds above which the account would be red flagged and possibly > blocked? For example more than 10,000 Again, of course, this leads > back to the issue mentioned above. > 3) Does this not in the end come down to some fundamental choices we > make as an OSM community regarding accountability and lineage? All you > need to sign up for an OSM account is a valid email address, a self > assigned username and password, and agreement with the CT. I am all > for respecting people's privacy and not gathering any more personal > information than strictly necessary, but when there are so few > limitations as to what you can do immediately after you sign up, is > that really sustainable? Should we not be move to a system where > newcomers have stricter limits imposed on what they can do (number of > edits, geographical scope of their edits..), and lift those > limitations gradually when they it becomes apparent (through peer > validation, a buddy system - I am not saying this is easy...) that > their contributions meet some quality standards? I realize full well > that this brings us no further to a solution for these current cases, > I just wanted to reflect on how these situations can come to exist in > the first place: being able to sign up to OSM, start changing stuff at > scale (even scripted) because you know better, without meeting much > technical resistance - and moreover being able to do so without ever > talking to anyone. We're only talking about a few (how many?) cases > now, and looking for ways to deal with them, but there will be more > and we need to think about how we can be prepared for them. > > Martijn > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Ian Dees wrote: > > > >> We need to stop talking in nebulous terms. "the complaints here" are > >> apparently unknown to everyone. If it's not appropriate to describe the > >> specific issues, then perhaps we shouldn't be having this conversation > on > >> the mailing list. > > > > I would prefer to discuss this in general, and in the open. Firstly, > > open is good. Secondly, we're seeking guidelines for use now and in > > the future. > > > > I do understand where you are coming from though. Yes, I think > > "praise in public, criticize in private" is the way to go in general. > > However, that hasn't worked in these current cases. Again, we've had > > _many_ complaints about these very few accounts. If you haven't seen > > something like this? Good. You are better for it. > > > > As Dale suggests in his point 1), if one mapper takes the high road > > and decides not to change a disputed edit, but to discuss instead, > > then the other mapper can effectively "game the system". They can not > > engage, or not change their mind and effectively get what they want, > > without consultation or collaborative mapping. Rest assured that the > > difficult mappers would scream "edit war; bad touch!!!" were the high > > road mapper to respond by reverting or editing to their preference. > > > > But how do we distinguish between an idiosyncratic mapper who chooses > > to be less-engaged with the broader community from a mapping bully who > > will have it their way, regardless? We[1] can discuss welcome and > > unwelcome behaviours. We can establish guidelines. We can educate > > where required. We can impose sanctions where the above don't work. > > > > Discussion comes first. DWG have a pattern of complaints from mappers > > who feel that something must be done. DWG is asking the US community > > at large what you would have DWG do o
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
> We need to stop talking in nebulous terms. "the complaints here" are > apparently unknown to everyone. If it's not appropriate to describe the > specific issues, then perhaps we shouldn't be having this conversation on the > mailing list. Heh, one has to be quite new to talk-us to not know the likely suspect(s). Oops, I think my bias is showing. That notwithstanding, I think it is quite reasonable to discuss the DWG boundaries and guidelines without details of a specific conflict. It makes sense to discuss and decide what the purview *should* be, before you can decide if a given conflict falls within those boundaries. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
It's hard to come up with guidelines when you don't know the specifics, but let me throw in some thoughts based on what I read: 1) If you were to take administrative action on an account, blocking it either temporarily or permanently, how do you prevent the same person (or group of people, or bot, using the account) from starting fresh under a new guise? My limited knowledge of these matters suggests that this would be a Hard Problem. If it is, blocking accounts is a toothless measure that doesn't even deserve all that much consideration. If it isn't, I'm curious to know how it works, but that's possibly for another thread. 2) From past discussions about this I gathered that these particular accounts that inspire a lot of controversy and complaints usually show a high prolificness - higher than reasonable for a human mapper. Possibly, there are also particular discernible patterns to their edits? Is this something that can be quantified into editing thresholds above which the account would be red flagged and possibly blocked? For example more than 10,000 Again, of course, this leads back to the issue mentioned above. 3) Does this not in the end come down to some fundamental choices we make as an OSM community regarding accountability and lineage? All you need to sign up for an OSM account is a valid email address, a self assigned username and password, and agreement with the CT. I am all for respecting people's privacy and not gathering any more personal information than strictly necessary, but when there are so few limitations as to what you can do immediately after you sign up, is that really sustainable? Should we not be move to a system where newcomers have stricter limits imposed on what they can do (number of edits, geographical scope of their edits..), and lift those limitations gradually when they it becomes apparent (through peer validation, a buddy system - I am not saying this is easy...) that their contributions meet some quality standards? I realize full well that this brings us no further to a solution for these current cases, I just wanted to reflect on how these situations can come to exist in the first place: being able to sign up to OSM, start changing stuff at scale (even scripted) because you know better, without meeting much technical resistance - and moreover being able to do so without ever talking to anyone. We're only talking about a few (how many?) cases now, and looking for ways to deal with them, but there will be more and we need to think about how we can be prepared for them. Martijn On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Ian Dees wrote: > >> We need to stop talking in nebulous terms. "the complaints here" are >> apparently unknown to everyone. If it's not appropriate to describe the >> specific issues, then perhaps we shouldn't be having this conversation on >> the mailing list. > > I would prefer to discuss this in general, and in the open. Firstly, > open is good. Secondly, we're seeking guidelines for use now and in > the future. > > I do understand where you are coming from though. Yes, I think > "praise in public, criticize in private" is the way to go in general. > However, that hasn't worked in these current cases. Again, we've had > _many_ complaints about these very few accounts. If you haven't seen > something like this? Good. You are better for it. > > As Dale suggests in his point 1), if one mapper takes the high road > and decides not to change a disputed edit, but to discuss instead, > then the other mapper can effectively "game the system". They can not > engage, or not change their mind and effectively get what they want, > without consultation or collaborative mapping. Rest assured that the > difficult mappers would scream "edit war; bad touch!!!" were the high > road mapper to respond by reverting or editing to their preference. > > But how do we distinguish between an idiosyncratic mapper who chooses > to be less-engaged with the broader community from a mapping bully who > will have it their way, regardless? We[1] can discuss welcome and > unwelcome behaviours. We can establish guidelines. We can educate > where required. We can impose sanctions where the above don't work. > > Discussion comes first. DWG have a pattern of complaints from mappers > who feel that something must be done. DWG is asking the US community > at large what you would have DWG do on your behalf? You could tell > those mappers to "suck it up and stop whining." That's what the > difficult accounts have effectively said. I think that we can do > better than that. > > I won't suggest that every complaint DWG receives deserves equal > weight after consideration of the matter. And I won't suggest that > some accounts are always wrong while other accounts are always right. > But this is a giant flashing warning light. With a klaxon. > > [1] We = "We as a community" > > ___ >
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Ian Dees wrote: > We need to stop talking in nebulous terms. "the complaints here" are > apparently unknown to everyone. If it's not appropriate to describe the > specific issues, then perhaps we shouldn't be having this conversation on > the mailing list. I would prefer to discuss this in general, and in the open. Firstly, open is good. Secondly, we're seeking guidelines for use now and in the future. I do understand where you are coming from though. Yes, I think "praise in public, criticize in private" is the way to go in general. However, that hasn't worked in these current cases. Again, we've had _many_ complaints about these very few accounts. If you haven't seen something like this? Good. You are better for it. As Dale suggests in his point 1), if one mapper takes the high road and decides not to change a disputed edit, but to discuss instead, then the other mapper can effectively "game the system". They can not engage, or not change their mind and effectively get what they want, without consultation or collaborative mapping. Rest assured that the difficult mappers would scream "edit war; bad touch!!!" were the high road mapper to respond by reverting or editing to their preference. But how do we distinguish between an idiosyncratic mapper who chooses to be less-engaged with the broader community from a mapping bully who will have it their way, regardless? We[1] can discuss welcome and unwelcome behaviours. We can establish guidelines. We can educate where required. We can impose sanctions where the above don't work. Discussion comes first. DWG have a pattern of complaints from mappers who feel that something must be done. DWG is asking the US community at large what you would have DWG do on your behalf? You could tell those mappers to "suck it up and stop whining." That's what the difficult accounts have effectively said. I think that we can do better than that. I won't suggest that every complaint DWG receives deserves equal weight after consideration of the matter. And I won't suggest that some accounts are always wrong while other accounts are always right. But this is a giant flashing warning light. With a klaxon. [1] We = "We as a community" ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
My best take on the questions: For this discussion your basically arbitrators. Investigate what is involved with arbitration, what do they require and how do they manage these issues. 1) When is "being difficult" transitioning into an edit war that DWG has dealt with? Is this just an edit war where one person is trying to resolve it with discussion instead of continual reverts and edits? 2) The DWG needs a set of guidelines for it and the mappers that is controlled by DWG (not a general use WIKI anyone can edit) that they can point to for self resolution, or use if the DWG must take action on it's own. 3) It will happen because you will not have all the facts all the time. Handle those situations gracefully. Dale On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Ian Dees wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > >> Richard, >> >> Thank you for this well thought out email and summary of the DWG. >> >> You've touched on an important issue, which is that the complains here >> are a bit outside the scope of normal DWG functions, and more toward >> conflict resolution and code of conduct. >> >> This is not a role that's unfamiliar to the DWG- for example its >> intervention in Israel. >> >> You may be right that this code of conduct issue isn't the DWG's >> domain, but no other organization has the ability/authority to take >> such action. > > > We need to stop talking in nebulous terms. "the complaints here" are > apparently unknown to everyone. If it's not appropriate to describe the > specific issues, then perhaps we shouldn't be having this conversation on > the mailing list. > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > -- Dale Puch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > Richard, > > Thank you for this well thought out email and summary of the DWG. > > You've touched on an important issue, which is that the complains here > are a bit outside the scope of normal DWG functions, and more toward > conflict resolution and code of conduct. > > This is not a role that's unfamiliar to the DWG- for example its > intervention in Israel. > > You may be right that this code of conduct issue isn't the DWG's > domain, but no other organization has the ability/authority to take > such action. We need to stop talking in nebulous terms. "the complaints here" are apparently unknown to everyone. If it's not appropriate to describe the specific issues, then perhaps we shouldn't be having this conversation on the mailing list. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Richard, Thank you for this well thought out email and summary of the DWG. You've touched on an important issue, which is that the complains here are a bit outside the scope of normal DWG functions, and more toward conflict resolution and code of conduct. This is not a role that's unfamiliar to the DWG- for example its intervention in Israel. You may be right that this code of conduct issue isn't the DWG's domain, but no other organization has the ability/authority to take such action. - Serge ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
It would help to know the concrete incidences - any way to know more details? On Oct 31, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > Hi, > > Summary > > The Data Working Group has had a high number of complaints about a > small number of mappers in the USA. The matter falls outside the > normal activities of DWG. DWG would like to help, but need your > guidance in how to do so. > > What is the Data Working Group? > > The Data Working Group exists to handle matters that users don't wish > to handle. Namely: > >Resolution of issues in copyright violation, disputes, vandalism, > and bots, beyond the normal means of the community. >Helping to set policy on data. >Detecting and stopping vandalism and imports that to not comply > with guidelines. > > Most of this is uncontroversial and largely invisible to the > community. As an example, when a mapper notices that somebody has > created an imaginary town and notifies DWG, DWG can contact the > mapper, block the account temporarily and revert the changesets to > restore the real map data. > > It is also uncontroversial when a user self-reports that their bot or > import has made an error and they ask DWG to revert the error for > them. I should also note that many experienced users on the OSM IRC > channels can offer help with undoing self-reported mistakes. DWG is > called at times to block parties involved in edit wars and other > harmful activities. > > The current matter > > An unusual number of complaints have come to DWG regarding a small > number of accounts. It is unusual to get a complaint about any > account from more than one other account. The numbers involved here > beggar our experience in any other part of the world. > > The matters from that varied complaints are typically differences of > opinion on tagging. > The mappers involved have generally attempted to resolve the matters in > private. > The matters generally involve a local mapper and one from further away. > The local mappers generally report that they are being 'over ruled' by > a remote mapper who won't accept the local mappers local knowledge. > > DWG has the administrative tools to block an account. What we don't > have is a clear rule stating that we can block an account for "being > difficult". > > Questions for the US mapping community: > > 1) Do you want DWG to act on your behalf on this matter and or similar > matters? > 2) How would you frame your guidance to DWG so that DWG act > appropriately now and in the future? > 3) How would you frame your guidance to DWG so that there are no > false-positives and few false-negatives? > > It is my opinion that this very limited number of difficult mappers > are a large net-negative to the US mapping community and that the > difficult behaviours must be stopped for the benefit of OSM. > > Best regards, > Richard Weait on behalf of > OSMF Data Working Group > > > [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us Alex Barth http://twitter.com/lxbarth tel (+1) 202 250 3633 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
Hi, Summary The Data Working Group has had a high number of complaints about a small number of mappers in the USA. The matter falls outside the normal activities of DWG. DWG would like to help, but need your guidance in how to do so. What is the Data Working Group? The Data Working Group exists to handle matters that users don't wish to handle. Namely: Resolution of issues in copyright violation, disputes, vandalism, and bots, beyond the normal means of the community. Helping to set policy on data. Detecting and stopping vandalism and imports that to not comply with guidelines. Most of this is uncontroversial and largely invisible to the community. As an example, when a mapper notices that somebody has created an imaginary town and notifies DWG, DWG can contact the mapper, block the account temporarily and revert the changesets to restore the real map data. It is also uncontroversial when a user self-reports that their bot or import has made an error and they ask DWG to revert the error for them. I should also note that many experienced users on the OSM IRC channels can offer help with undoing self-reported mistakes. DWG is called at times to block parties involved in edit wars and other harmful activities. The current matter An unusual number of complaints have come to DWG regarding a small number of accounts. It is unusual to get a complaint about any account from more than one other account. The numbers involved here beggar our experience in any other part of the world. The matters from that varied complaints are typically differences of opinion on tagging. The mappers involved have generally attempted to resolve the matters in private. The matters generally involve a local mapper and one from further away. The local mappers generally report that they are being 'over ruled' by a remote mapper who won't accept the local mappers local knowledge. DWG has the administrative tools to block an account. What we don't have is a clear rule stating that we can block an account for "being difficult". Questions for the US mapping community: 1) Do you want DWG to act on your behalf on this matter and or similar matters? 2) How would you frame your guidance to DWG so that DWG act appropriately now and in the future? 3) How would you frame your guidance to DWG so that there are no false-positives and few false-negatives? It is my opinion that this very limited number of difficult mappers are a large net-negative to the US mapping community and that the difficult behaviours must be stopped for the benefit of OSM. Best regards, Richard Weait on behalf of OSMF Data Working Group [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
