On 2014-06-20 12:47 PM, Johan C wrote:
> However, I don't think it's a good idear that the DWG can decide on
> policies/guidelines/requirements etcetera because it's the same DWG that
> uses these policies/guidelines/requirements for enforcing.
The DWG does not decide policies. That is one of the roles of the
Management team[1].
> As broadly as you describe it, you could also be implying a policy onto
> HOT. For example, I have been armchair mapping in the Philippines,
trying
> to do my best using sometimes bad satellite imagery (cloudy) to map
roads
> in the Tacloban area. Or it could have also been tracks (difficulty to
> see sometimes), whereby I tried to use a tracktype which I'm sure was
not
> always correct all the time. HOT is a larger organization, and I was not
> directly working for HOT but by using the tasking manager I was a remote
> mapper.
> You could also mean Maproulette, which seems to be a nice tool (I've
never
> used it) but which also promotes armchair mapping. And what about
quality
> assurance tools: even when they are not signalling things right some
> mappers desperately want to solve any warning/error they come up with.
I'm glad you brought up the examples of armchair mapping through the TM,
MapRoulette, and QA tools. All of these are addressed in the discussion
paper,
which specifically excluded them from the scope.
> Of course you can reply saying I'm exaggerating. But is the DWG
_proposal_
Having written regulatory guidance professionally, what was sent out was
sent is closest to a discussion paper, not a policy proposal, intended to
illicit viewpoints, not advocate specific requirements. Points may be
included because members of the community have brought them up, not because
they came from a member of the DWG.
[1]:
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Management_Team/Statutes#Policy_Procedure
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
