Hi Sérgio,

I think those are excellent ideas. I'll have to see if we can easily generate a table showing members per country. I believe that members get a link to osmf-talk when they join, but indeed it could be shown along with the other lists.

Please join, and encourage your friends to join! Brazil currently has 8 OSMF members. On average, 100 Brazilians edit the map every day. This puts it near the bottom of my spreadsheet for members / mappers. Together, you can make sure the Brazilian community is properly represented in the Foundation.

Guillaume

Hi Sérgio,

Yeah, it's part of the membership register. Anyone can make a formal request to see the register of normal members, and members themselves can request to see the register of both normal and associate members.

Guillaume

Hah, we've been procrastinating with the same things! I'll post about my analysis soon too.

As a clarification maybe: the "other policy draft proposed to the board that was apparently written by a mapping company" is probably either the document written by the advisory board, or the set of amendments to the current guidelines that Mikel proposed to water them down. DWG and I know of no other document.

It actually looks like a Flickr-style map not unlike https://maposmatic.osm-baustelle.de/results//037506_2018-11-03_15-09_.pdf was used as a base.

@pangoSE I'm not sure what program Yll used, but vector drawing editors like Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator would be able to do that. I'd try different styles to see what's easiest to edit.

So far you're the person who's voiced their opinion the strongest :)

Christoph, yes, the conflict of interest question is a relevant one that the board urgently needs to answer. For clarity's sake, even though you're not accusing me of it, I don't have any even remote conflict of interest in this game. I've only ever organised one tiny mapathon years ago, and organised mapping rarely if ever occurs in my areas of interest. My goal has been to do first what's best for the map and second reach the best possible compromise that can be accepted by the board and as many as possible.

I understand what you're saying about regulatory capture. The procedure has deliberately been transparent, and the DWG and the Board check and balance each other nicely.

I have neither ignored anyone nor capitulated to anyone. You've read Mikel's questions; it seems unlikely to me that he would accept what you're suggesting, just as you would not accept what he's suggesting.

The consensus in DWG, and I believe in general, is that this is a good compromise everyone could live with.

The board is democratically elected by the OSMF members. Its questions and suggestions have been handled impartially as such. If you don't like what it's doing, convincing as many craft mappers to become OSMF members and to vote in December is the best way to go. Peter, Mikel and Martijn are up for reelection this year.

--

Michael, you're right, it would be good to have the questions and my answers in the minutes.

Of course a private closed forum would violate the guidelines. I think the technical term, if you did that and claimed an imaginary emergency, would be "taking the mickey".

For transparency's sake, here are the questions I got from the board on Thursday. Some questions were on the exact same paragraphs, but from the opposite angle. This shows, once again, that we listened to all sides, and chose compromise over confrontation to get something that everyone could live with.

Hi Christoph! As you say yourself, there were discussions before and after the first draft. There were many posts to the mailing lists, and I actually have some of your contributions printed out and annotated here on my desk. You and I were in Karlsruhe last spring when Frederik and I very openly brainstormed on these with whoever wanted to join. I've asked pretty much every mapper I've met this year for their thoughts. I think it's unfair to me and ungrateful to everyone who helped me to suggest that there was no dialogue.

I did not say good or bad things about the other existing policies, on OSM and elsewhere, in my report. What I'm saying is that we looked at what people are familiar with (and got rid of the unfamiliar RFC-style writing), and what solutions people elsewhere have come up with (which doesn't fit OSM for many reasons). If we hadn't done this, you would (rightly) be accusing me of having written something that doesn't fit in the existing ecosystem, and of having reinvented the wheel by ignoring the world outside.

I understand that you would have liked us to be less compromising in our compromise, but I describing the result as toothless shows a misunderstanding. The "Informing the community" section, in particular, guarantees that local mappers won't get steamrolled and strongly encourages a constructive collaboration.

Hi Rob! I had a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2018_Q4_Project:_Addresses_and_Postcodes_revisited and it seems to me that the UK quarterly projects actually already do most of what the guidelines recommend! The UK community seems to have decided by itself that doing this kind of thing is a good idea. What should be done in addition to that and what is unnecessary is up to the local community to decide, really.

Tangent: we should look at integrating https://raggedred.net/codepoint/ in editors. If you make a PR to the Editor Layer Index, I'll merge it.

This looks really cool!

How does this deal with cases where the GTFS only has one centroid for the stop point and OSM has all the individual platforms and stop positions mapped?

Is there any Ubuntu-specific stuff in it, or should it run on anything that runs Django and postgis?

I love the data bulletin idea too, that's so cool! Will you make it a regular thing?

I think it's very interesting that the import guidelines don’t actually define what the term means.

Boundaries are one of the few things we have in OSM that you can't collect on the ground - how are you collecting them? Boundary markers?

Viel Erfolg!

Hi everyone! This seems to have fallen asleep. Mikel, if you'd agree to extend this again to the 1st of March, I'll match your pledge.

Welcome Harman! I've been editing my local map for a few years, and I'm still editing at 50% :).

Adding to the thanks!

Hello Paul,

You are, rightly, campaigning based on your good results from your work on the board. You are a voice for protecting mappers, and conserve things as they are.

You outline a few areas where you see the need for more regulation. Can you maybe outline how you think your proposals in those area could look?

Besides keeping the machine running smoothly, do you see new directions which the OSMF should explore?

Thank you for your answers, and good luck.