Hi, We had a tight schedule for this survey, because we want to be able to present something by the next SotM. That explains why some questions aren't exactly worded perfectly. It would have been better to get more people involved and do more testing. But that inevitably slows things down. We did ask the science mailing list for feedback, but the only response was a volunteer to translate to Hungarian (thanks Levente!). And while I think there are clearly some issues that we missed, the output will still be quite useful.
I think we would like to get more people involved next time. The first survey was really last minute, this one is a bit better prepared but still made a few mistakes. The next one can be built over a bit more time. Oh The "remote mapping" was added as a "nice to know" and wasn't even deeply discussed between the three of us writing the actual survey questions. We did intend to publish "raw data", and consulted with LWG to get a proper wording for that. We understood that the "Publicly, aggregated and anonymously " meant "answers presented together" in whatever form (spreadsheet etc) and was not referring to a summary. If we misenterpreted that (unfortunately that feels kind of obvious now), than we'll make sure the wording is better next time. And there is also the option to become an OSMF volunteer who has signed ad NDA, for those who want to work with the raw data. -- Joost Schouppe OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
