At Mapbox, we’re continuously updating OpenStreetMap from user feedback - here’s how we go about the process.

Any user of a Mapbox map can flag wrong or missing information via an “Improve this map” link in the bottom right corner of the map. The link leads to a feedback page that allows a user to very quickly say what’s wrong on the map. Alternatively he/she can chose to edit the underlying data - OpenStreetMap - directly. Since we streamlined the feedback form in January we are receiving a much higher volume of end user feedback and we’ve formalized our process of handling this feedback.

Using “Improve this map” on a DuckDuckGo map.

What feedback we receive

The current break down of feedback we receive is roughly as follows:

• 50 % does not contain sufficient information or is just spam
• 30 % is wrong or missing information on map (this is the part that’s relevant for OpenStreetMap)
• 10 % is feedback for the app the map is embedded in (not about the map at all)
• 5 % is a geocoding issue (mostly an issue with the geocoding API or non-OpenStreetMap geocoding data)
• 3 % is a directions issue (this is often also OpenStreetMap relevant)
• 2 % is about map design or similar

Our process

Every map feedback submitted opens a ticket on an internal Github issue queue that our data team reviews daily.

Fresh map feedback in our issue queue. We’re using Zapier to turn form submissions in to Github tickets.

We review each map feedback ticket with the following workflow:

1. Determine whether a ticket is relevant for OpenStreetMap data
2. If yes, determine whether we can fix the issue with remote mapping
3. If no, open a note on OpenStreetMap with details of the feedback.
4. Verify feedback against a secondary source.
5. If we can verify the feedback, we update OpenStreetMap.
6. If no, open a note on OpenStreetMap with details of the feedback.

Secondary sources

We verify all map feedback against a second source before applying it to OpenStreetMap. To this end, we work with the following sources:

1. Satellite imagery fit for use in OpenStreetMap (vast majority of feedback)
2. Original information (like for instance a shop’s web site)
3. Wikidata or similar appropriately licensed sources

Zeromap’s recent writeup of how we wound up accepting a misspelled location caused us to make the verification step a much stricter requirement. If we cannot verify information against a secondary source we will not apply it to OpenStreetMap but rather open a note. If the information between map feedback and the secondary source differs, we will use the secondary source.

Publishing feedback

The submission form on Mapbox maps allows for really fast feedback but with it also comes an expectation of privacy. For instance, some users submit personally identifiable information, such as their name together with their address. We take this expectation of privacy very very seriously and hence do not publish feedback we receive directly. When we pass on feedback in form of an OpenStreetMap note, we scrub it of any personally identifiable information and frame it as a question that enables participation from local mappers.

Your feedback

Our goal is to make OpenStreetMap the best map in the world. We see our work very complimentary to local community and are intent on making sure we only add solid information to OpenStreetMap.

Let us know where we can do better! Just comment here or send me a note through my profile.