Agree with Mateusz. The discourse platform allows the author to edit their post so the author could simply fix the problem (maybe after checking with their superiors) since it is clearly a factual error.

Should they refuse to fix the issue then you can still take it to the next level.

It is no secret that HOT paid for a lot of the work hours that went into setting up this Discourse forum. This donation was welcomed by the OSMF and does of course not mean that HOT should have any control over Discourse, or claim to own it. (A claim to “have helped create it” or so would however be totally appropriate.)

Such PR lapses like the one you point to can point to a cultural problem or even be deliberate. I remember long ago a press release about some new service by the commercial company CloudMade where the press reported that “CloudMade’s OpenStreetMap project” did this or that. CloudMade claimed at the time that they never said OSM was their project and the press was mis-interpreting things. It was probably a mix of both - I think that CloudMade employees probably talked as if their company owned OSM, even if they didn’t say it, and the press picked up on that.

But I’d be willing to apply Hanlon’s razor in this case :wink:

2 Likes