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 <frede...@remote.org> 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
