That said, nice find !

That debate already occurred ages ago and multiple times about many free software projects. Free software is… Free - for all human endeavours, including those some denounce.

Military use of Openstreetmap is nothing new either: with another mapper, I presented Openstreetmap and Qgis to staff officers of the Malian army in Bamako in 2016.

I support such clarification. Has it been discussed with the LCCWG yet ? I like the UK method exposed by SK53.

If the Openstreetmap Foundation Board needs a HR associate and a staff accountant, why would they need to be Board committees instead of simply contractors serving a working group ? Of course, direct executive control lets the board do more and do it faster - but at the cost of wider participation, so it amounts in practice to concentration of power and that comes with risks. While executive power ultimately belongs to the Board, I believe that the Working Groups must keep operational control - even when contractors are involved.

In other words, the OSMF Board believes it needs a HR associate and a staff accountant. That may be. But why would they need to be Board committees instead of simply contractors ?

My apologies for not specifying that CartONG has of course nothing to do with the UNICEF Mali education import.

Do not believe that dirty data once imported will ever be cleaned. The UNICEF Mali education import has school positions all so approximate that all they are useful for is to hint that a school exists in the vicinity of that village - not useless but it is has no place in Openstreetmap. And the names are in fucking uppercase. It has been six years since this horror. osm.wiki/Import_MALI_UNICEF_Education

Surtout, la complétude apparente n’implique pas que les données soient correctes… Un œil nouveau est toujours bienvenu pour passer dans le jardin et arracher quelques mauvaises herbes.

Re: implementation, have you looked at Mediawiki’s Article Feedback extension ? Looks like work in progress, but this could eventually fit this requirement. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5

@muramototomoya/diary/42305

@ff5722/diary/42211

Indeed mistakes are normal for new users and HOT has no monopoly there (and new users don’t either - experienced users such as me sometimes make mistakes of considerably larger scale). What sets organizations such as HOT apart is that they are skilled at corralling lots of new users into projects to which they claim leadership - which is all a good thing for everyone involved. But I believe that the branding of these new user’s contributions (witness their ubiquitous use of hashtags in changeset comments) means some responsibility upon the leadership who organizes them. That leadership is no hierarchy and the users take no orders… But there is leadership in organization nevertheless and with that comes responsibility for the outcome. In technical terms, it means that I believe the leaders to be ultimately responsible for the quality of their project’s output: they cannot foist that upon the unsuspecting new users who, contrary to them, have no idea about what a sufficient quality assurance process is. The tasking manager has a validation step built upon its process, so all that remains is a will to enforce that step measured using the excellent array of validation tooling such as Osmose or the JOSM validator: enticing new users into contributing and branding their contributions comes with a responsibility to coach them.