There might have been a misunderstanding…
A very useful talk, interesting especially to see how OSM is seen from the perspective of people who perhaps have the most authority on what actually goes in the map - the DWG. However, I am wondering about the format and channel of delivering this message. I’m not sure how many people have seen the talk, but I expect the sample to be self-selected from those who are already relatively deeply engaged with the OSM, and, consequently, they already know a lot of what was said here. A lot of this content is available through the wiki, but I’m wondering if it shouldn’t be made more prominent on OSM landing page. Or perhaps the ID editor could be augmented so that the walkthrough that is offered to the new mappers does not only focus on how to edit, but also what to edit?
An Incomplete History of Companies and Professionals in OpenStreetMap
A solid opening, and a lot of informative background. This talk makes me think it would indeed be useful to write up - perhaps as someone in the Q&A suggested, in a collaborative way (or at least with more than one perspective represented). Worth to watch together with the “Curious Cases of Corporations in OpenStreetMap 🎓” talk from Day 2.
What to do when local citizens do not consent?
An interesting talk, with humanitarian principles such as do no harm and informed consent at the centre. For me personally, it highlights the tension that is created when a company or an organisation is contracted to do some OSM work, and then, for reasons beyond their control, this proves to be challenging.
For example, a humanitarian mapping project may wish to create a tag, or an interrelated tagging system, for a specific aspect of humanitarian operations. They may have things well thought out based on the examples in front of them, but the OSM community could be resistant to the new tag because while it would work well in Africa it would not be applicable to Asia, or because the tag is too specific and only really suitable for this one particular project’s requirements. Now the organisation is in an uncomfortable position where they have to deliver on a contract, but the OSM community is rejecting their contribution.
Aa another example, another humanitarian mapping project may wish to upload a sizeable chunk of refugee camp facilities data into OSM. Even assuming there are no licensing issues, the organisation may or may not be the author of the data, the person doing the upload may or may not be the one who collected the data in the field, finally, the data may or may not fall under the Imports or Organised Editing categories. Again, the project is contractually obligated to upload the data, but the community may reject it.
Both of these examples point to the need for careful consideration of how to engage with the OSM community and understand procedures before undertaking any work contract.