Re: [Diversity-talk] Idea: Quarterly Projects for a traditionally underrepresented topic(s)/groups?
On 3/26/2018 1:24 PM, Rory McCann wrote: Any ideas for topics? Some ideas - Regional languages. Is there a regional language you speak? Make sure that you're adding it to the map when objects have a name in that language. Unfortunately, this isn't great for a global project because not everyone can do it. - Traditionally "blue-collar" areas. It's fairly well known that these are underrepresented in OSM, and there's a lot of mapping that can be done remotely. Something I've worked on has been mapping industrial parks. For these, a basic mapping would be buildings, industrial area names, building numbers, landuse, and service roads on them. Many industrial parks have places to eat to serve the workers around them and these are important to map too. There's lots more that could be mapped, but this would be a good start. - Wheelchair access has lots of resources, but isn't underrepresented in OSM mapping. ___ Diversity-talk mailing list Code of Conduct: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
Re: [Diversity-talk] Who Maps The World
On 3/18/2018 3:23 PM, Charlotte Wolter wrote: Paul, A kindergarten is a school, not a child-care center. They are two fundamentally different things. Also, child-care centers serve a range of ages, not just 5-year-olds. I, too, tried to find a real child-care tag a few months ago. There is none, and "kindergarten" doesn't cut it. In American English kindergarten has this meaning, but amenity=kindergarten is used for "Use the amenity=kindergarten for establishments offering early years education and supervision (also known as pre-schools) for children up to the age of formal (often mandatory) school education. This tag is also currently used for establishments where parents can leave their young children but which provide no formal education." When we get to specific uses, it is used for "a day facility for children, covering a wider and overlapping range of crèche children (0-3 years), kindergarten/preschool (3-6 years), and after-school care for primary school children (6-12 years)" I was looking for child-care a few months ago, and the places that I found that were also in OSM were mapped with amenity=kindergarten. Don't worry too much about the meaning of OSM tags in American English. They're supposed to be defined in British English, and even then, the meaning can shift as people use it, just like language can. ___ Diversity-talk mailing list Code of Conduct: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
Re: [Diversity-talk] Who Maps The World
On 3/14/2018 6:47 PM, alyssa wright wrote: Hi all, City Lab article below on gender disparity in OSM. I actually think things have evolved and are more nuanced then ever before. Wondering if I am being naive. Yes - part of the thesis of the article is based around the claims of what gets mapped. The claims in the article do not reflect reality. OSM has more childcare centers (amenity=kindergarten) mapped than sports arenas or sports arenas, the examples from the article. I couldn't figure out what tags Levine was talking about for strip clubs. For healthcare, the claims are vaguer, but as a general rule, "primary" information like something being a doctor's office, clinic, or other healthcare facility gets mapped faster than "subtag" information like what type of specialty the doctor's has. This is normal - when I'm out mapping, noting where there's a doctor's or clinic is more important than what type it is. You see the same in other subtags. Looking at what healthcare facilities is tagged with that additional information, and ignoring "general", the five most popular are "Obstetrics and gynaecology", "Ophthalmology", "General (internal) medicine", "Paediatrics", and "Trauma and orthopaedic surgery". (UK terms). The gender percentages are interesting, and if accurate, put a much lower value on percentage of mapping that HOT does than I've seen in the past. I suspect there are some problems with different sources of numbers, and the numbers cited not being accurate. [1]: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/healthcare%3Aspeciality#values ___ Diversity-talk mailing list Code of Conduct: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Diversity/MailingList/CodeOfConduct Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org
Re: [Diversity-talk] Code of Conduct & Moderation for this list
On 2/28/2018 2:44 AM, Rory McCann wrote: Hi all, To follow up on the phone call, and waiting a little bit for people to join. I think this list should have a Code of Conduct. I propose something like Geek Feminism's one. Thoughts? http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Community_anti-harassment/Policy I see nothing wrong with a mailing list deciding on rules for how they moderate themselves. Before setting rules, it's important to identify what behavior is an issue. With OpenStreetMap Carto's (osm-carto) Code of Conduct, I wanted to start with text that covered derailing topics, including by taking issues off-topic. osm-carto went with a CoC based on that of Go.[1] The other codes of conduct that made my list for consideration were those from Debian, FreeBSD, Go, Joomla, Puppet, GNOME, Julia, and KDE. A downside to this list is that they're all software development related projects. OpenStreetMap Carto is similar to one[2], but OpenStreetMap isn't a software project. I would want to also consider what other non-software volunteer groups are doing. Some that kind to mine are cycling associations, ramblers, and other groups which OSM has a strong tie to. A couple of issues I would consider if I were doing the selection again are readability and education or socioeconomic status. Readability is a big problem with many codes of conduct. The Go CoC comes with a score of 11-13,[3] and I'd want 8-10 at most. This is better than the Geek Feminism one, which scores 13-15 and uses a lot of jargon. For education and socioeconomic status, I can't say it any better than Richard Fairhurst did [4]: Volunteer communities in general, and open source software in particular, can be unwelcoming places for people from poorer backgrounds or without a university/college education. Wealthy, educated people - which most open source contributors are - can easily dismiss contributions from such users through rhetorical skill, through sniping on grammar/spelling etc., and through belitting their concerns as not representative of the empowered, educated group. Increasingly I have noticed that contributors from these [areas where residents have typically benefited from as good an education, and have less well-paying jobs] find it hard to articulate their views on the site without being shot down by the wealthier, more educated majority. This might take the form of the majority criticising minority contributors over minutiae (small sincerely-believed factual inaccuracies, grammar/spelling); or a deliberate unwillingness to tolerate assumptions that differ from the majority; or constructing means of engagement/consultation that are less open to those from poorer backgrounds (evening meetings arranged which are effectively closed to those unable to get childcare, etc.). My open-source background is largely in the OpenStreetMap project where there has been a fair amount of academic research done into contributor biases (particularly, though not entirely, through the work of Professor Muki Haklay). The result of such bias is easy to visualise in OSM: wealthy areas such as London or San Francisco are mapped in much more detail than poorer areas such as the Welsh Valleys or the rural American Midwest. However, although the prevailing open-source narrative has led to a fair amount of (welcome) discussion as to how we can welcome and help those groups traditionally considered marginalised in technology, there has been little or no thought given to how we make ourselves more welcoming to poorer or less well educated people. Indeed, there are instances of where such contributors have received a hostile reception on the project's communication channels (mailing lists, on-site discussions). [1]: The reporting mechanisms weren't suitable for a small project [2]: It's style development, but we communicate over issues, pull requests, and similar means. [3]: Sometimes called grade level, but that leads people to bad assumptions about what level of education is needed to understand a piece of text [4]: https://github.com/ContributorCovenant/contributor_covenant/pull/491 ___ Diversity-talk mailing list Code of Conduct: TBD Contact the mods (private): diversity-talk-ow...@openstreetmap.org (_internal_name)s
Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness
On 12/2/2014 3:22 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Your justification for this seems to be behaviour outside of this list and/or, and this is the bit I take particular offense with, The private responses to me have generally expressed that is part of a pattern of behavior, and not an isolated incident. Which, in essence, means nothing less than people having emailed you in private and influenced your decision by telling you bad things about Serge. I've been on the unpleasant end of moderation myself and I can tell you that there's few things more hurtful than having a secret court against you in which some people get the chance to whisper something in the moderator's ear, and the moderator ends up partly justifying their decision by what he's been told. Given that this decision involves an outcome far exceeding previous precedents[1] based on allegations he was not given a chance to respond to and involved activities outside the scope of the OSMF, I would strongly encourage Serge to raise the moderator action to the appropriate body as unreasonable. The appropriate body is probably the CWG. It should also be noted that moderator action cannot be justified as enforcing a code of conduct when that code of conduct has not been adopted with the consensus of the list, list-wide consensus, a directive from a WG responsible, or a board decision. A moderator could use such a code of conduct as a guide to coming to a decision, but the decision must be justified in of itself. ___ diversity-talk mailing list diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness
On 12/2/2014 5:04 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: Am I to understand that felt Serge's comments were acceptable behavior? I was expecting to find that you at least didn't condone it. but sadly no where did you say Serge's comments were unacceptable. No where did I say that his comments were acceptable or unacceptable. A more appropriate response would have been to enable moderation for both participants and perhaps the list, and then to let posts through after review. Darrell even offered a process for Serge to appeal his decision. It's worth noting that there already exists ways of appealing moderator decisions, though they have been seldom used in the past as few past decisions have overstepped their bounds. ___ diversity-talk mailing list diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
Re: [diversity-talk] OSM code of conduct: starting points
On 10/11/2014 3:48 PM, Darrell Fuhriman wrote: Here’s my question, and this needs to be clarified (probably deserves its own thread): Who is responsible for deciding what action needs to be taken in the case of CoC violations? A CoC without a body willing and able to enforce it is just window dressing. This is, in practice, not a huge issue. Violations on mailing lists would fall under the responsibilities of the list moderators, and I think the CWG (or MT) is the working group ultimately responsible. Violations on the API (website) are a DWG responsibility, governed by the ban policy[1]. SOTM is under the responsibility of the SOTM WG, and I imagine they'd delegate responsibility to the event planners when it comes to the actual event. This is of course straying from the topic of diversity-talk@ a great deal, do in violation of what some have proposed for a Code of Conduct[2]. A more suitable venue for the entire CoC discussion would be the general talk list or other non-topic specific lists. [1]: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Ban_Policy [2]: https://github.com/osmlab/CoC-mailing-lists/blob/master/code_of_conduct.md ___ diversity-talk mailing list diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
Re: [diversity-talk] OSM code of conduct: starting points
On 10/8/2014 8:49 PM, Jo Walsh wrote: Okay, my gloss on this is that the Code of Conduct is a kind of shibboleth and a kind of insurance policy. You need one in order to be seen taking this stuff seriously The argument raised recently was that having a CoC helps diversity, and is not a symbolic move. ___ diversity-talk mailing list diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
