Data Working Group 2016 Q1 Case Report
Background
The Data Working Group (DWG) filed 42 cases for the time period from 1 January 2016 to 31 March 2016.
Some inquiries were handled quickly without any official action on the Data Working Group’s part–usually
due to the inquiry not falling under the purview of the Data Working Group.
Generally, when a complaint is brought to the DWG, the complainant is asked to first open dialogue withthe user in question. This is accomplished through the channels of changeset discussions, forum and mailinglist posts, or private messages as a last resort. DWG members may also choose to become directly involvedin this communication immediately; otherwise, they will wait for a response from the user. Changeset
discussions are viewable by everyone and are preferred as other OSM users can also provide input and sothat the communication trail can be established.
If a user is unresponsive after a period of time but continues to edit the map, they will often be given a
0 hour block. This block requires them to log into the OSM website and read the block message set by aDWG member. In some cases, a user performing large-scale edits or using incompatible data sources may
be blocked immediately to provide a pause for analysis and limit the amount of data added to the database.
Data that are found to be in conflict with the OSM license or community standards of practice may
be reverted either by a DWG member or by a member of the community if requested. Data may also
be redacted completely from the database, especially for egregious copyright violations. Occasionally theDWG receives requests or complaints from the general public through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
compliance email address; correctly mapped data is usually not modified, but small changes in classifications
or representation may be made by DWG members.
In every case, the DWG gives mappers the benefit of the doubt and that they are acting with goodintentions. Complaints may indeed be ruled as unfounded or incorrect if the alleged is correctly mapping.
Perhaps the features added are very new, and a user surveyed that data but did not indicate this in theirchangeset. Alternatively, the user may be adding survey data from a holiday a few weeks prior that was
greatly removed from their home. In these instances, tickets are closed out and no further action is taken.

Case list
Created2016/01/11
2016/01/12
2016/01/15
2016/01/16
2016/01/23
2016/01/24
2016/01/24
2016/01/27
2016/01/28
2016/01/30
2016/02/02
2016/02/03
2016/02/07
2016/02/08
2016/02/14
2016/02/17
2016/02/18
2016/02/19
2016/02/20
2016/02/21

Type
spam or poor mappinguser conflict and non-responsiveness
undiscussed mechanical edit
undiscussed or other problematic importspam or poor mapping
undiscussed or other problematic importspam or poor mapping
spam or poor mapping
spam or poor mappinguser conflict and non-responsiveness
import from potentially incompatible source
general request for information
undiscussed or other problematic importrequest for technical help e.g. revert
non-international external complaint about data
user conflict and non-responsivenessspam or poor mappinguser conflict and non-responsivenessspam or poor mappinguser conflict and non-responsiveness1RegionEnglandGermany
GlobalGermany
England
USAUSA
Spain
USAUSA
RussiaEnglandEnglandRomania
England
GlobalGlobalItaly
PolandWales

Actionno action needed
revertedrevertedrevertedcommunity contactedreverted
revertedrevertedotherblock issued
reverted
advice given
reverted
advice given
revertedno action needed
no action neededchangeset commented
revertedchangeset commented

Created
2016/02/22
2016/02/24
2016/02/27
2016/02/27
2016/02/27
2016/03/02
2016/03/02
2016/03/07
2016/03/08
2016/03/08
2016/03/09
2016/03/12
2016/03/12
2016/03/12
2016/03/14
2016/03/16
2016/03/20
2016/03/21
2016/03/22
2016/03/23
2016/03/25
2016/03/26

Typeuser conflict and non-responsivenessspam or poor mapping
non-international external complaint about data
spam or poor mapping
spam or poor mapping
undiscussed mechanical edit
general request for information
import from potentially incompatible source
spam or poor mapping
spam or poor mapping
import from potentially incompatible source
undiscussed or other problematic importimport from potentially incompatible source
import from potentially incompatible source
spam or poor mapping
spam or poor mapping
spam or poor mapping
undiscussed mechanical edit
undiscussed or other problematic importspam or poor mapping
general request for informationinternational dispute

RegionGermany
GlobalKosovoGermany
Haiti
EnglandUSA
Denmark
EnglandTurkmenistan
Nederland
Nederland
AfghanistanAfghanistan
Venezuela
Zimbabwe
RussiaGlobe
Somalia
RussiaEnglandWestern Sahara

Actionblock issued
revertedrevertedrevertedrevertedreverted
advice givenno action needed
no action needed
revertedrevertedreverted
block issued
revertedrevertedrevertedrevertedrevertedrevertedreverted
advice givenno action needed

Reporting methodology
Each case listed is identified by the creation date of the ticket, the type of issue or complaint, the region
affected, and DWG action on the case.
Cases are manually coded into the following highly generalized categories:• API misuse: user abusing API for editing.
• DMCA notice: legal entity filing a Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notice.
• General request for information: a query about a data type, a process, or other at least semi-DWG
related matter.
• Import from incompatible source: user adding copyrighted or otherwise incompatibly licensed data.
• International dispute: mapping dispute related to international issues, such as border representations
or international attributes on objects.
• Non-international external complaint about data: an outside entity with a data issue (e.g. privateproperty, incorrect tag).
• Request for technical help: community request for DWG expertise, usually in reverting a complex setof data.
• Request to remove personal data: complaint about identifying information added to the database,whether on objects or notes.
• Spam or poor mapping: a user adding spam data or generally degrading data quality.
• Undiscussed mechanical edit: user employing technical means to edit OSM with limited or no humanintervention and not following the automated edits code of conduct.
• Undiscussed or other problematic import: user importing data without following the guidelines.
2• User conflict or non-responsiveness: a conflict between one or more mappers, possibly due to nonresponsiveness in discussions about the mapping occurring.
• Other: issue that does not necessarily fit into one of these categories.
Reporting methodologies differed from the current system prior to 2017, so the listed action may be only
one of the many DWG actions for the case. Nevertheless, action definitions are:• Advice given: information is provided to the party.
• Block issued: a user block is issued for a user.
• Changeset commented: a DWG member reached out in a comment on an involved changeset.
• Hiding of notes or comments: in the case of personal data or spam, the note or comment was hiddenfrom public view.
• No action needed: the community resolved the case, the suspected violation was indeed not actuallytrue, or the case required no intervention.
• Reverted: data in question were reverted and possibly redacted.
• Other: action does not necessarily fit into one of these categories.
Prepared by Ethan Nelson for the Data Working Group3