Re: [OSM-talk] Scientific paper on "Information Seeding"

[Richard Fairhurst]

Greg Morgan wrote:
> Let's compare Germany[8], the state of Montana[9] and the 
> United States[10]. We see that the size of Montana matches the 
> size of Germany. Yet, we see the population density is roughly 
> 82 million people in Germany to 1 million people in Montana.

I see a lot of varied mapping practice in the US while engaged on TIGER
fixup (trying to make it routable for bikes), much of it very good, which is
leading me to the conclusion that the density argument is mostly a red
herring.

Anywhere with a population of 3k+ should be able to support an OSM volunteer
or two[1]. Most people in the US, and most people in Europe, live in such
places. Indeed, the US has hundreds, thousands of such local mappers: there
are great examples of small-town mapping all over the US and it always
cheers me up to stumble across them.

55% of Montana's population lives in urban areas, compared to, say, 67% in
Wales. It's less (and there are differences in methodology) but it's not
_that_ much less. There is no density reason why Billings need be less well
mapped than Bangor, Kalispell than Carmarthen, or Missoula than Machynlleth.

That leaves the rural areas, which are big and empty. But, and you'll excuse
me stating the blindingly obvious, the thing about empty areas is that
there's not much there to map. The TIGER A41 issue continues to be a running
sore but, by and large, this can be (and is being) armchaired.

Richard

[1] other than issues with socio-economic and educational characteristics,
which is a whole different story



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Scientific paper on "Information Seeding"

[Marc Gemis]

> Compare that with the AND import of the Netherlands where the data was
> accurate and needed only minor fixing but where the bulk has just been
> untouched (except for adding metadata) and is still the base of the map
> in the Netherlands.

I hope you are not referring to the building import nor the landuse
import from AND.
Which is/was crappy data and still requires cleanup in the northern
part of Belgium, although it was Dutch data.

m.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Scientific paper on "Information Seeding"

[Maarten Deen]

On 2018-07-09 11:55, James wrote:

From what I understand TIGER data is very poor quality to begin with
and is at a federal level, this study doesnt take into account local
GIS data(say a city or a province/state data) which often is more
accurate. It seems fixated on one data import instance vs many in
statististics their sample size would be too small to draw a
conclusion


I agree with that. What I've seen from the TIGER data it is not 
conducive for a good mapper ecosystem. Yes, it will function to show a 
map that is moderately accurate, it might function if you want to use 
the data for routing purposes and maybe even for guided navigation, but 
virtually all information needs fixing so the amount of work you have to 
do to get a correct map is still humongous. And then you get parts which 
are corrected and part which are not and the casual dataconsumer can not 
really distinguish them.


Compare that with the AND import of the Netherlands where the data was 
accurate and needed only minor fixing but where the bulk has just been 
untouched (except for adding metadata) and is still the base of the map 
in the Netherlands.


So the one import cannot be compared to the other and conclusions drawn 
from one can not be extrapolated as being the truth.


Regards,
Maarten


On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 5:05 AM Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 09/07/18 18:35, Christoph Hormann wrote:


And if you want to know about how to successfully map and build a

local

mapping community in a large and sparsely populated country and

are fed

up with the namby-pamby western Europeans who don't know a thing

about

this maybe talk to the Russians...


Yep.



All to easy to be critical .. but so what?
Getting people to contribute to the map is what it is about.
There is one guy on Quilpie Queensland Australia who has made good
contributions to the map - he is local .. so knows what is there.
The edits may not be the 'best' but they do indicate what is there..
I've edited some of them to make them OSM 'better' but tried to keep
the original information.
Yet to contact him to let him know .. but good on him for putting
his foot in the water.
Don't think there is much chance of getting a local group out there
.. unless you count 1 as a group.
And maybe one is all it takes in smaller places.
Officially Quilpie's population is less than 600.

___
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] Scientific paper on "Information Seeding"

[James]

>From what I understand TIGER data is very poor quality to begin with and is
at a federal level, this study doesnt take into account local GIS data(say
a city or a province/state data) which often is more accurate. It seems
fixated on one data import instance vs many in statististics their sample
size would be too small to draw a conclusion

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 5:05 AM Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 09/07/18 18:35, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> >
> > And if you want to know about how to successfully map and build a local
> > mapping community in a large and sparsely populated country and are fed
> > up with the namby-pamby western Europeans who don't know a thing about
> > this maybe talk to the Russians...
>
> Yep.
>
> 
>
> All to easy to be critical .. but so what?
> Getting people to contribute to the map is what it is about.
> There is one guy on Quilpie Queensland Australia who has made good
> contributions to the map - he is local .. so knows what is there.
> The edits may not be the 'best' but they do indicate what is there.. I've
> edited some of them to make them OSM 'better' but tried to keep the
> original information.
> Yet to contact him to let him know .. but good on him for putting his foot
> in the water.
> Don't think there is much chance of getting a local group out there ..
> unless you count 1 as a group.
> And maybe one is all it takes in smaller places.
> Officially Quilpie's population is less than 600.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Scientific paper on "Information Seeding"

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 09.07.2018 10:35, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> I am not really sure what you actually want to say here.  You clearly 
> try to discredit the paper cited and you also attack Frederik for 
> linking to it.  But if you truly think the paper is nonsense and you 
> know all this stuff so much better why don't you write your own paper 
> pointing out the errors and explaining how things really are?

This thread started when I said that imports can often be damaging to
community building, and people innocently asked if I can back that up
with facts or research.

Now of course it is extremely difficult to do research in this
particular area at all; you can't just design an experiment and let it
run for 10 years and see what happens. That we have any research at all
about this topic, and not just anecdotes (of which there are of course
many), is very valuable.

Of course it is always very tempting to discredit research that doesn't
agree with one's strongly held beliefs. "When I said show me some
research, I meant THE OTHER KIND of research!!!" - I would probably
start looking for flaws in a study that branded a data import as a huge
success kickstarting a vibrant community too ;)

Anyway, I'm fine with a discussion based on gut feelings and anectdotal
evidence. Just don't ask me to prove my point with research if you're
not interested.

Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Scientific paper on "Information Seeding"

[Warin]

On 09/07/18 18:35, Christoph Hormann wrote:


And if you want to know about how to successfully map and build a local
mapping community in a large and sparsely populated country and are fed
up with the namby-pamby western Europeans who don't know a thing about
this maybe talk to the Russians...


Yep.



All to easy to be critical .. but so what?
Getting people to contribute to the map is what it is about.
There is one guy on Quilpie Queensland Australia who has made good 
contributions to the map - he is local .. so knows what is there.
The edits may not be the 'best' but they do indicate what is there.. I've 
edited some of them to make them OSM 'better' but tried to keep the original 
information.
Yet to contact him to let him know .. but good on him for putting his foot in 
the water.
Don't think there is much chance of getting a local group out there .. unless 
you count 1 as a group.
And maybe one is all it takes in smaller places.
Officially Quilpie's population is less than 600.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Scientific paper on "Information Seeding"

[Christoph Hormann]

I find it fascinating how much effort you put into the attempt to 
discredit the paper this is about.

But what you write is ultimately mostly a collection of unrelated 
trivialities and assumptions that do not actually manage to question 
the methodology used in the paper.  There are aspects you can 
rightfully criticize about the reasearch work documented in the paper 
but to do that you would need to look deeper into what the author 
actually did instead of musing about the motivation for plane trips 
across the US.

I am not really sure what you actually want to say here.  You clearly 
try to discredit the paper cited and you also attack Frederik for 
linking to it.  But if you truly think the paper is nonsense and you 
know all this stuff so much better why don't you write your own paper 
pointing out the errors and explaining how things really are?

Just criticizing people is cheap if you don't expose yourself by making 
your own analysis and your own statements others can review and argue 
about.

The only statement beyond the superficial criticism in that regard i can 
read from what you write is: Mapping in the US is hard.  That is of 
course by definition a subjective statement so no one will seriously be 
able to argue with you about that.

And if you want to know about how to successfully map and build a local 
mapping community in a large and sparsely populated country and are fed 
up with the namby-pamby western Europeans who don't know a thing about 
this maybe talk to the Russians...

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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Scientific paper on "Information Seeding"

[Rory McCann]

Hi Greg,

I don't think anyone's claiming there should be the same amount of 
OSMers *per square kilometer*, but *per capita* instead.


Rory

On 09/07/18 02:21, Greg Morgan wrote:



On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Frederik Ramm > wrote:


Hi,

today I was pointed to a recent, open-access scientific paper called
"Information Seeding and Knowledge Production in Online Communities:
Evidence from OpenStreetMap". This open-access paper is available here

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3044581


In the context of armchair mapping, but especially of data imports (and
recently, machine-generated OSM data) there's always been the discussion
between those who say "careful, too much importing will hurt the growth
of a local community", and others who say "this import is going to
kick-start a local community, let's do it!"


Honestly Frederik, you point to a study and say that it is all 
scientific.  Furthermore, you act like you just came across the study 
when in fact you have already pushed to the mailing lists on two other 
occasions.[1][2] This also shows that you have failed to properly check 
the research before pushing the link once again.  The study is all 
scientific sounding yet the very heart of the study is based on the 
Modifiable Areal Unit Problem.[3] Quoting the author "Note that TIGER 
information was incorporated for 3,093 counties within the US; the state 
of Massachusetts was excluded because better quality information
was available from the state government.12 I will restrict my analysis 
to these 3,093 counties."  The author picked any data, ignoring the size 
of the population or other social and economic factors to make his 
point.  Thankfully the US Census Bureau uses "Block Groups (BGs) are 
statistical divisions of census tracts, are generally defined to contain 
between 600 and 3,000 people, and are used to present data and control 
block numbering."[4]   The whole foundation of the "INFORMATION SEEDING 
AND KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION IN ONLINE COMMUNITIES: EVIDENCE FROM 
OPENSTREETMAP" study is based on a geographic division that the 
_Census_department_would_not_use_.  The Census Bureau uses their block 
and tract configuration for a number of federal programs.


Based on local knowledge you shouldn't even be pushing this study.  This 
appears to be what happened.  A smart person takes a plane trip to the 
east coast of the US.  That person obtains a degree at MIT and is a 
Post-Doctoral Fellow--egg head kind-of smart.  That same person that 
authored this study now takes a plane trip to UC Berkeley in California 
for a job that the person landed. These two plane trips have led to his 
fatal analysis that all counties and the rest of the US must look like 
MIT and UC Berkeley and have the same high density as those two cities.


Let's take the Arizona county I map out of, Maricopa County[5], the 
Arizona county just north of me, Yavapai County [6], and Switzerland[7] 
to see the basic flaws in this research.  5/8th of Switzerland fits in 
my county alone.  Adding Yavapai County's size to Maricopa County's size 
we now have all of Switzerland covered and the combined population of 
Maricopa County and Yavapai County adds only a 228,168 increase to 
Maricopa County's population.  The study says that both Maricopa and 
Yavapai county should perform the same.  Following this I have always 
heard from European's that the American's should perform the same just 
like how Europe mapped.  The size of two counties that are part of 
Arizona swallows up the size of Switzerland begins to show why the US 
has a lower mapper density than Europe does.


Let's compare Germany[8], the state of Montana[9] and the United 
States[10].  We see that the size of Montana matches the size of 
Germany.  Yet, we see the population density is roughly 82 million 
people in Germany to 1 million people in Montana.z  You see there is 
nothing special to the vaunted Germany Pub Meetup as a way to map.  You 
have the natural density to make it happen. Moreover, now you feel the 
German experience should be the same for the rest of the world and that 
Montana can have the same mapping success as Germany.  In Germany 
mappers are a dime a dozen.   Oh but wait!  Let's take Germany's 
population density and see what the US population would have to be to 
have the same mapping success.
US Square Milles 3,796,742 / Germany Square Milles 137,903 = It takes 
27.53197537399476 Germany's to fit into the US.

This means that to match the German population the US would need
27.5319753739947 * 82,800,000 = 62,279,647,560.966766 people where the 
current population is 325,719,178.


The value of travel and education is that a person's understanding of 
world is expanded.  That person's view is expanded to understand other 
human beings live and work in diverse places. The failure here 

Re: [OSM-talk] Scientific paper on "Information Seeding"

[Greg Morgan]

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> today I was pointed to a recent, open-access scientific paper called
> "Information Seeding and Knowledge Production in Online Communities:
> Evidence from OpenStreetMap". This open-access paper is available here
>
> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3044581
>
> In the context of armchair mapping, but especially of data imports (and
> recently, machine-generated OSM data) there's always been the discussion
> between those who say "careful, too much importing will hurt the growth
> of a local community", and others who say "this import is going to
> kick-start a local community, let's do it!"
>

Honestly Frederik, you point to a study and say that it is all scientific.
Furthermore, you act like you just came across the study when in fact you
have already pushed to the mailing lists on two other occasions.[1][2] This
also shows that you have failed to properly check the research before
pushing the link once again.  The study is all scientific sounding yet the
very heart of the study is based on the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem.[3]
Quoting the author "Note that TIGER information was incorporated for 3,093
counties within the US; the state of Massachusetts was excluded because
better quality information
was available from the state government.12 I will restrict my analysis to
these 3,093 counties."  The author picked any data, ignoring the size of
the population or other social and economic factors to make his point.
Thankfully the US Census Bureau uses "Block Groups (BGs) are statistical
divisions of census tracts, are generally defined to contain between 600
and 3,000 people, and are used to present data and control block
numbering."[4]   The whole foundation of the "INFORMATION SEEDING AND
KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION IN ONLINE COMMUNITIES: EVIDENCE FROM OPENSTREETMAP"
study is based on a geographic division that the
_Census_department_would_not_use_.  The Census Bureau uses their block and
tract configuration for a number of federal programs.

Based on local knowledge you shouldn't even be pushing this study.  This
appears to be what happened.  A smart person takes a plane trip to the east
coast of the US.  That person obtains a degree at MIT and is a
Post-Doctoral Fellow--egg head kind-of smart.  That same person that
authored this study now takes a plane trip to UC Berkeley in California for
a job that the person landed. These two plane trips have led to his fatal
analysis that all counties and the rest of the US must look like MIT and UC
Berkeley and have the same high density as those two cities.

Let's take the Arizona county I map out of, Maricopa County[5], the Arizona
county just north of me, Yavapai County [6], and Switzerland[7] to see the
basic flaws in this research.  5/8th of Switzerland fits in my county
alone.  Adding Yavapai County's size to Maricopa County's size we now have
all of Switzerland covered and the combined population of Maricopa County
and Yavapai County adds only a 228,168 increase to Maricopa County's
population.  The study says that both Maricopa and Yavapai county should
perform the same.  Following this I have always heard from European's that
the American's should perform the same just like how Europe mapped.  The
size of two counties that are part of Arizona swallows up the size of
Switzerland begins to show why the US has a lower mapper density than
Europe does.

Let's compare Germany[8], the state of Montana[9] and the United
States[10].  We see that the size of Montana matches the size of Germany.
Yet, we see the population density is roughly 82 million people in Germany
to 1 million people in Montana.  You see there is nothing special to the
vaunted Germany Pub Meetup as a way to map.  You have the natural density
to make it happen. Moreover, now you feel the German experience should be
the same for the rest of the world and that Montana can have the same
mapping success as Germany.  In Germany mappers are a dime a dozen.   Oh
but wait!  Let's take Germany's population density and see what the US
population would have to be to have the same mapping success.
US Square Milles 3,796,742 / Germany Square Milles 137,903 = It takes
27.53197537399476 Germany's to fit into the US.
This means that to match the German population the US would need
27.5319753739947 * 82,800,000 = 62,279,647,560.966766 people where the
current population is 325,719,178.

The value of travel and education is that a person's understanding of world
is expanded.  That person's view is expanded to understand other human
beings live and work in diverse places. The failure here is that instead of
understanding that the world is different; instead of understanding that
not every one has high speed internet; instead of understanding that not
every one has the same leisure time available to map; the same tired
rhetoric is repeated over and over again that everyone should be able to
craft map their local space has overshadowed the 

Re: [OSM-talk] Scientific paper on "Information Seeding"

[Clifford Snow]

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Christoph Hormann  wrote:

>
> The analysis and the observations coming from it look pretty solid.  I
> am not fully convinced by the interpretation of the reasons lying
> largely in contributors taking 'ownership' of the data they contribute.
> This would in my eyes - at least if meant in terms of individual
> ownership - require the original contributors at the beginning to
> continue to be significant in terms of overall contribution volume over
> the whole time span analyzed.  This seems rather unlikely considering
> the active contributor turnover we have in general
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Active_contributors_year.png).
>

Christoph,
As Simon said, I believe there may be some validity to Abhishek Nagaraj's
findings on ownership.  It's why so many people watch edits in their area.
They are quick to challenge poor edits in their watch area. I believe they
have a sense of ownership in the area. It's an attribute that would be nice
to encourage. I think of it more in terms of stewardship rather than
ownership, but either way, OSM benefits.

Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Scientific paper on "Information Seeding"

[Clifford Snow]

Frederik,
Abhishek Nagaraj, the author of the study you mentioned, presented [1] his
findings at the SotM-US in Boulder. I had a chance to ask Abhishek about
his research findings. What he said is that how the import is designed has
a lot to due with how they impact subsequent edits. In the case of the
TIGER import, the counties with poor data [1], suffered. Counties with
better (I'd never say good) did not. The poor TIGER counties saw few road
attributes, like surface= tags, added.

In contract, after the Building and Address import in Seattle, users
commented how much easier it was to add poi information. The import does
not seem to have impact user contributions. In fact Seattle has a very
active OSM community. Many factors go into why Seattle is successful. The
high tech presence in the area, the OSM Meetup group, the active OSGEO
community, and the communities willingness to get involved. The
building/address import was just one small part of the equation.

>From what I took away from the study is that imports need to be well
thought out and executed.

I encourage everyone to watch Abhishek Nagaraj presentation [1] - and I'm
not just saying that I'm mentioned. 

[1] https://2017.stateofthemap.us/program/quasi-experimental-research.html
[2] Some counties data had been cleaned up prior to publishing while others
were not.

Clifford

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> today I was pointed to a recent, open-access scientific paper called
> "Information Seeding and Knowledge Production in Online Communities:
> Evidence from OpenStreetMap". This open-access paper is available here
>
> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3044581
>
> In the context of armchair mapping, but especially of data imports (and
> recently, machine-generated OSM data) there's always been the discussion
> between those who say "careful, too much importing will hurt the growth
> of a local community", and others who say "this import is going to
> kick-start a local community, let's do it!"
>
> Until now this has been a rather un-proven matter of belief, and the
> general mood is usually in favour of a quick build-up of data (through
> remote mapping, importing, or machine learning) instead of a
> take-it-slow approach that would wait for a community to form and take
> matters into their own hands.
>
> The paper quoted above uses OSM as a research object and finds that in
> certain ways imports in OSM have indeed harmed community growth. The
> paper attempts to provide insights helpful for all kinds of
> user-generated knowledge projects (not necessarily OSM), and
> draws the following conclusion:
>
> "While information seeding could be useful to encourage the production
> of distant forms of follow-on knowledge, it might demotivate and
> under-provide more mundane and incremental follow-on information.
> Accordingly, if managers are interested in leveraging pre-existing
> information to spur the development of online communities, they might be
> better served by withholding some pre-existing information and provide
> community members with some space to create knowledge from scratch—even
> if such knowledge already exists in an external source. This policy allows
> community members to become invested in the community and develop
> ownership over the knowledge."
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Scientific paper on "Information Seeding"

[Simon Poole]

Am 10.10.2017 um 00:07 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> The analysis and the observations coming from it look pretty solid.  I 
> am not fully convinced by the interpretation of the reasons lying 
> largely in contributors taking 'ownership' of the data they contribute.  
> This would in my eyes - at least if meant in terms of individual 
> ownership - require the original contributors at the beginning to 
> continue to be significant in terms of overall contribution volume over 
> the whole time span analyzed.  This seems rather unlikely considering 
> the active contributor turnover we have in general 
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Active_contributors_year.png).

I wouldn't reject the "ownership" hypothesis because of the large, and
increasing, amount of churn. As we know that "most" data is contributed
by fairly small number of contributors and they could well be longer
term contributor too. IIRC there is at least one paper co-authored by
Pascal that has numbers on this, maybe it is worth the effort to dig
that out again.

That said there are obviously other mechanisms that could produce the
measured effect.

Simon



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Scientific paper on "Information Seeding"

[Warin]

On 10-Oct-17 09:07 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:

On Monday 09 October 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote:

today I was pointed to a recent, open-access scientific paper called
"Information Seeding and Knowledge Production in Online Communities:
Evidence from OpenStreetMap". This open-access paper is available
here

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3044581

Very interesting.

As additional summary: The analysis made is based on the original Tiger
import which produced a different level of completeness in different
areas due to differences in the source data and thereby offers fairly
well defined starting conditions for a comparative analysis.

The analysis and the observations coming from it look pretty solid.  I
am not fully convinced by the interpretation of the reasons lying
largely in contributors taking 'ownership' of the data they contribute.
This would in my eyes - at least if meant in terms of individual
ownership - require the original contributors at the beginning to
continue to be significant in terms of overall contribution volume over
the whole time span analyzed.  This seems rather unlikely considering
the active contributor turnover we have in general
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Active_contributors_year.png).


So, survey performed on a society where internet access is common.
If the survey were performed where internet access is very rare (satellite 
only) the the conclusion may be different.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Scientific paper on "Information Seeding"

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 09 October 2017, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> today I was pointed to a recent, open-access scientific paper called
> "Information Seeding and Knowledge Production in Online Communities:
> Evidence from OpenStreetMap". This open-access paper is available
> here
>
> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3044581

Very interesting.

As additional summary: The analysis made is based on the original Tiger 
import which produced a different level of completeness in different 
areas due to differences in the source data and thereby offers fairly 
well defined starting conditions for a comparative analysis.

The analysis and the observations coming from it look pretty solid.  I 
am not fully convinced by the interpretation of the reasons lying 
largely in contributors taking 'ownership' of the data they contribute.  
This would in my eyes - at least if meant in terms of individual 
ownership - require the original contributors at the beginning to 
continue to be significant in terms of overall contribution volume over 
the whole time span analyzed.  This seems rather unlikely considering 
the active contributor turnover we have in general 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Active_contributors_year.png).

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

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

[OSM-talk] Scientific paper on "Information Seeding"

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

today I was pointed to a recent, open-access scientific paper called
"Information Seeding and Knowledge Production in Online Communities:
Evidence from OpenStreetMap". This open-access paper is available here

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3044581

In the context of armchair mapping, but especially of data imports (and
recently, machine-generated OSM data) there's always been the discussion
between those who say "careful, too much importing will hurt the growth
of a local community", and others who say "this import is going to
kick-start a local community, let's do it!"

Until now this has been a rather un-proven matter of belief, and the
general mood is usually in favour of a quick build-up of data (through
remote mapping, importing, or machine learning) instead of a
take-it-slow approach that would wait for a community to form and take
matters into their own hands.

The paper quoted above uses OSM as a research object and finds that in
certain ways imports in OSM have indeed harmed community growth. The
paper attempts to provide insights helpful for all kinds of
user-generated knowledge projects (not necessarily OSM), and
draws the following conclusion:

"While information seeding could be useful to encourage the production
of distant forms of follow-on knowledge, it might demotivate and
under-provide more mundane and incremental follow-on information.
Accordingly, if managers are interested in leveraging pre-existing
information to spur the development of online communities, they might be
better served by withholding some pre-existing information and provide
community members with some space to create knowledge from scratch—even
if such knowledge already exists in an external source. This policy allows
community members to become invested in the community and develop
ownership over the knowledge."

Bye
Frederik

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

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