(first of all, I have not read the backlog of this conversation, only the last few messages)
Hi I work for a company that does public transport information and we use OSM for footrouting, POIs and background map. This means we do very general edits without any particular directives to what, when and how. Basically if we see a problem – any problem – we fix it ad hoc. We might be tracing or importing missing roads (in accordance with Norwegian road import regulations), fixing mispelled names or improper tagging, draw in railway platforms etc. Because of the great diversity and general nature of our mapping I feel it would make more sense to simply have user profile linking rather than the changeset hashtags. My user would act as the hashtag. Otherwise we would have to use lots of hashtags for different types of edits or just one that means “this is us” which would only mirror our user profiles anyway. Therefore I feel I am opposed to the absoluteness of the damand of hashtagging every changeset – although I see its usefulness for mapping events or Maproulettes. ++ Also there is a wording that keeps confusing me in the policy: You must ensure that people looking at your edits know that they are part of a directed mapping activity Looks like the people looking at the edits are part of the activity. Johan Wiklund Data manager johan.wikl...@entur.org<mailto:johan.wikl...@entur.org> www.entur.org<http://www.entur.org/> From: Yuri Astrakhan [mailto:yuriastrak...@gmail.com] Sent: onsdag 22. november 2017 04.16 To: Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr> Cc: Talk Openstreetmap <talk@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Directed Editing Policy Pierre, I suspect the number of QA-tool-driven changes are as big, if not much bigger than changes from the organized events and paid editing. I agree QA tools should be regulated, but are you sure we want to do it in the same document, and significantly increase the scope? My understanding is that the original goal was to regulate paid editing and community events. Covering QA tools might make the doc too generic. It would have to take a detailed look at all existing tools, even including JOSM's validators -- if I edit a location (e.g. move a road), and the tool suggests additional edits in that location (e.g. change the tagging of a connected road), isn't that directed editing that was organized by the validation rule author? Plus the introduction, and a lot of text would have to be rewritten to dedicate as much space to the tools as to organized events and director's duties. Just saying that the scope creep might make the statement less concise, and QA tools may need to be a separate document. On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr<mailto:pierz...@yahoo.fr>> wrote: There is a constant increae of organized contributions from Task Managers on QA tools and I agree that this policy should include these various organized contributions. There should be a goal assure the follow-up of these various projects to assure a better collective coordination of the mapping. I am not sure that we could effectively have all organizers of Events create a wiki page. But organizers like for example the Geoweek, that invite to create local events should have a wiki page well documented. A section could be added to list the specific events + who organize them. The Changeset database is the place where we should be able to follow the various mapping projects. There is actually no common way to document the QA or TM host, the specific project and the various events connecting to the various projects. To document how these various coordination tools should be reported on the changesets would facilitate the follow-up. Actually, not all instances of the Tasking Manager add an hashtag to document the host and project no. For QA tools, specific projects / missions are not documented either. Pierre Le mardi 21 novembre 2017 21:21:55 HNE, Yuri Astrakhan <yuriastrak...@gmail.com<mailto:yuriastrak...@gmail.com>> a écrit : While this might not have been the intention, the > b) directed by a third party exactly what and how to contribute to OpenStreetMap can be applied to any "challenge style" sites such as the MapRoulette or Osmose. I think there should either be a clarification about this, an additional discussion with the community, or a specific exclusion. I know that the preamble is talking about paid editing, schools, and mapping events, but the text below it seems to have a wider scope. penstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
