How many standards does the DWG use?

Occasionally I’ve been noticing people copying from other maps, either clearly declaring the source, or not very clearly mentioning the source, or mentioning Bing when adding names then only when asked clarifying the real source, or splitting their contributions over several changesets then turning around the question without ever managing, or doing their best not to mention their real sources, or we just gave up asking.

To make the point, I have collected the above three users (@joserrg12, @BigKev97, @Alvarado2510), just three random mappers who have been systematically copying from “official sources”. These are three I happened to notice, and I am referring to them as authors of clearly not admissible edits, I hope nobody will try to look for any personal issues behind this, as —personally— I do not know any of these editors.

(More recently @Alvarado2510 has also been editing stuff to make sure that osmose would not show red flags in his area of concern—examples 1, 2, but there’s a lot more. Let’s not look into this here, I’m just concerned with copying and why the DWG intervenes differently in similar cases.)

Now to the title of this topic.

Recently @joserrg12 mapped something in Africa, just two changesets, and he did what he had been doing in Central America, that is map without mentioning sources, and without answering to questions. But this time the question were not raised by isolated fellow mappers, rather, by members of the Apple Data Team (#adt). This time the user got a cascade of questions and blocks by the DWG, first 0-hours blocks, then 1 day, then 3 days, to end with the current 6 months block.

IMO, @joserrg12 did not do anything particularly awful, or at least not so different from what @BigKev97 or @Alvarado2510 keep doing, that is to systematically ignore common practice, the Wiki, other users, our hints, comments, questions … So why such different outcomes in treatment by the DWG?

I’m asking publicly because I think this is an issue of concern for all, not just a personal quarrel that we should solve privately.

13 posts - 8 participants

Read full topic

Ce sujet de discussion accompagne la publication sur