EWG call for proposals for osm.org website work

The Engineering Working Group (EWG) would like to announce a call for proposals for the following project: Adding the ability to mute users on the openstreetmap.org website.

Please see the blog post announcement and the links therein for details.

This plan was previously discussed here. As this is the first time we’re opening a call for proposals using this process, it’s a bit of a learning experience for the working group as well. We hope to be able to fund more work on OSM software in the future.


Meta: I’m little at loss where to comment (this Discourse thread? Previous discussion Discourse thread? Blog reply? Or somewhere on deep-linked GitHub page? Somewhere else?), so I’ll do it here as this is the newest one :smile:

I’m interested in implications if a user A (e.g. a newbie who is doing problematic edits on the map) is blocking user B (e.g. good old mapper who knows how things should work, and who notices the problems and tries to contact user A).
As user A would then not receive messages from B after they have blocked them, how would this new functionality impact the process of trying to contact the user and explaining the problem to them?

(This seems likely, as in my experience problematic users often do not like when others alert them that they are doing bad things [no matter how softly they try to do it], so might likely block anybody who tries to warn them)

My evaluation of new situation (when this blocking functionality is implemented) is that user B would, upon noticing that user A is not responding to attempts to warn them but is still active (e.g. producing edits), assume that they’ve been blocked by user A, and would (instead of further trying contact user A) escalate the situation to DWG much sooner (due to other options being /likely/ exhausted).

Is that the intended way the workflow would change, or am I missing something?


leave changeset comment? Note

otherwise preserve existing notification functionality for changesets

it seems less about blocking, more about forcing communication into public view (where it is easier to review/handle it)

1 Like

Yes, this change is indeed about private messages. For matters that might require DWG involvement, it is generally recommended to attempt resolving them through (public) changeset discussions first.


Actually, it’s usually a good idea to try and sort things things out in public** regardless of whether or not DWG involvement is likely to be needed. Everyone then knows that everyone else can see what they said, and people are much more likely to be polite and respectful in any comments they make.

** likely initially in changeset discussion comments, but also perhaps later on a local or wider forum or list.


Was it intentional to leave out any mention of a deadline? When did you plan to decide on the proposals?

1 Like

thanks, the crux seems to be that I have missed that bit :+1:

Yes. This may or may not have been a good idea, but the current plan is to wait until we’ve received sufficient responses and/or have the impression that waiting any longer would be unlikely to produce any better opportunities.

1 Like

There is now a deadline on March 13, 2023 for submitting proposals.