I have to say, my initial reaction to this proposal was that it was heavy
handed, unnecessarily punitive, over reaching, and not in the spirit of OSM. A
cure worse than the disease.
But I think there's something here, which if done right, can benefit all
involved. In part it's framing this the right way, and in part the right tools,
which offer something to all involved. And the right tool I reckon are OSM
Groups (https://github.com/osmlab/openstreetmap-website/tree/groups-sketch).
It's wise to contextualize all of this as part of "best practice", rather than
policy requirements. We want to encourage people how to do things well within
OSM, rather than discourage them from getting involved at all. No reason to
take a defensive stance, unless an epic problem is erupting.
From the DWG and others, would be good to know more specifically about problem
instances from the past. Exactly what scale of a problem are we talking about?
To summarize what's new here, what the DWG is essential asking for is an
association between organized groups and individual user, and details on those
organized groups. And in fact, I bet most organized groups would be more than
happy happy to represent themselves, and the people involved.
Doing so on the wiki is clumsy. Doing so in openstreetmap-website could be very
straightforward for all involved.
Say I start a mapping project in a slum in Nairobi. I actually want to bring
everyone involved together, to communicate among ourselves, to promote our
project within the community, to help track and advise what folks are mapping.
I want a Group, and I want to integrate it as part of the training process. As
a bonus, anyone who has questions about what's going on, can find the
association from individual users easily, ask questions of the whole group or
group admin, if needed.
So let's finish up the groups-sketch, get in deployed, and start using smart
tools so its attractive and obvious how to do right by the map!
Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:26 PM, Alex Rollin <alex.rol...@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe someone could remind folks about the ...wasn't there a...did I hear about
a "test server"? Something like a sandbox?
>
>
>A
>
>
>--
>Alex
>
>
>On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote:
>
>Hi,
>>
>>
>>On 14.05.2014 11:09, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote:
>>> The focus needs to be on the problem at hand,
>>
>>"The problem at hand" is currently at a scale that can still be handled
>>on a case-by-case basis; the reason DWG is thinking about a general
>>guideline is not that we're trigger happy bureaucrats but that we'd like
>>everyone to know the rules of play rather than making them up as we go
>>along, and that we assume that the number of such cases might be on the
>>rise.
>>
>>
>>> which I gather is
>>> companies hiring people to map things using their own methodology
>>> incompatible with current OSM tagging guidelines.
>>
>>No, that is one potential issue but by far not the only aspect.
>>
>>Consider a real-life situation like this:
>>
>>* User complains "fictional data is added all over my city!"
>>* Investigation finds 10 accounts having added fictional data;
>>* further investigation finds that 10 other accounts have signed up at
>>the same time from the same network, but have added things that do not
>>immediately look bad (things that might or might not be factual)
>>* reaching out to those who edited the most brings zero reply (possibly
>>because their native language is not English nor anything spoken by
>>anyone in DWG)
>>
>>Even reconstructing the whole situation takes quite a bit of time; and
>>then we have to decide which bits to revert and which to keep. Is this a
>>course that was misunderstood, or just organized doodling, or what? How
>>can we reach the teacher (if any)?
>>
>>In this specific instance we decided to revert everything contributed by
>>the whole group - surely not the optimum outcome for an OSM training course!
>>
>>Bye
>>Frederik
>>
>>
>>--
>>Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>talk mailing list
>>talk@openstreetmap.org
>>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
