Grounds for Dispute


Let’s get the ball rolling. There is a lot of grey area during POI creation, what are some categories the community needs to consider to aid in POI disputes?

I would suggest the description should be relevant, accurate, and concise and the point location should be original, and accurate.

This means duplicate points, points with wrong information, and points with wrong location should be challenged.


Granted some POIs do not have global/local consensus on descriptions. Territorial disputes may remain in some continuous back and forth action on FOAM.

What’ll be really interesting to me is observing where the global FOAM community stands on ‘interfering’ in what is subjective, local POI disputes.

Should we vote on a disputed POI if it is beyond our familiarity with the territory?


I think this forum is a great first step. If FOAM is going to live up to its potential we are not only going to need the map to carry out dispute actions on but also an active forum to discuss why those decisions are being made and our reasoning behind our decisions. It will become a lot easier to answer questions about how the community will respond to things like duplicate POI if we have a community gathering place to discuss such issues.


Great point! There will always be spheres of experience that are foreign to any group - let’s not assume there’s only one canonical perspective.

Hopefully soon the will additional TCRs with culled data that optimise for different metrics.

More broadly, I think it’s important to remember that multiple points with largely the same info can also act as a signal - this information is roughly in agreement. Perhaps a pooling mechanism? Then the protocol can avoid penalizing well meaning cartographers that just happened to duplicate a POI.


I have a great example here. I was the first to create a POI at the White House and the first to be verified. My POI was challenged as a duplicate, which was a false claim. I tried to reach out on the Telegram to whoever the person who placed their POI after me, but nobody came forward. I lost the challenge and still upset that they challenged my POI under false pretenses. In the future I hope we can verify who was first to create a POI (it’s verifiable on the blockchain) and someone should have to challenge a POI with a real reason.


I suppose reputation will play a big part in this. If votes are weighted, then reputable voters relative to disputed territory will have more say over outcome of POIs there.

Not really sure about pooling POIs – shouldn’t there be 1 marker per POI? Which possibly after a series of voting is regarded as the most complete marker?
If there are cartographers wanting to stake for Eiffel Tower even though its already been marked then it should either have better info or actually be marking another POI, maybe just near the Tower (eg. park, cafe). And the Tower will still likely be more visible on the map if more has been staked.


Very interesting question! One path that the global community could take as a stance on this is a commitment to locality and what in the OpenStreetMap (OSM) community is known as “ground truth”. This is the principle that additions should only be added to the map by Cartographers that have physically verified the truth on the ground.

This is a source of tension between OSM communities and enterprises around the import of external datasets, for example a governmental dataset or Machine Learning done on satellite data done by Facebook. There is the opportunity to import big data into OSM but this undermines the idea of “ground truth” verification by Cartographers and runs the risk of importing outdated government data or data generated by biased or inaccurate algorithms.

In the spirit of Dynamic Proof of Location, making contributions to the Map or even participating in votes on challenges could require participants to produce Presence Claims to verify they have been to the location on the map that they want to edit.

A feature that would be great to add is not pooling POIs but allowing the pooling of stake on a POI. For example, if the POI was created at the Eiffel Tower I would be able to also stake to it. I would still own my tokens and control them, but I would not own the point. This serves the purpose of contributing to “boosting” the points visibility and equivalent to “liking”. If the point started with 100 tokens, but over time 1000 users added 1 token that would significantly increase its visibility.

In addition to the above about future incorporations of dynamic proof of location, in the short term reputation will become very important. Much of the needed information is already there but very opaque on the blockchain. For example, when a user issues a challenge it can be simple to display if that is an account that challenges often, is a large token holder etc.

Further you can add badges and achievements as Non-Fungible Tokens and rewards for reaching a certain number of points added or activity done on the Map. This is another form of adding reputation.

Sorry to hear about that experience! Hopefully this board can serve as a better means to alert the community to challenges that are occurring under false pretenses. As mentioned yes this data is on the blockchain but exists in an opaque form. Making more visible when the point was added in this case is a great front end suggestion.


Oh that’s cool. I love the idea of needing to make a presence claim in order contribute to the map and vote.


Is the concept of someone “owning” a POI actually beneficial to the project/community?

Here’s a scenario: I have (in real life) created a POI for a bar that I frequent which is run by a neighbor of mine. Maybe in a few months he learns about the FOAM project - maybe from me, sees the POI for the Frog Rock, and thinks “Cool. I’d like to stake some more FOAM to make it more prominent … hmm. But that’s not really how I’d like for the description to read.”

Now, in the current system he can ask for me to remove “my” POI so he can create a new one, but it’s more likely in general he won’t know who I am and will have to challenge it (I hope “I’m the owner - this is what I want it to say” should be sufficient to win votes) and have it removed so he can create a new one.

This just seems very confrontational to me - and likely to generate bad feelings. I think it would be preferable if there were no such thing as a POI “owner” and instead there were just “stakeholders”. If someone wants to change something about what is otherwise a fine POI she should issue a “change request” listing the desired changes and the result would be pretty much the same as the current “challenge” vote process. If a current stakeholder votes against the change and loses ad is upset about it he can always remove his stake.


I like this direction @jimkberry . Definitely excited to see a growing communal approach to identifying, and updating POIs.


Excellent thread. That would be cool if we could all pile tokens into a POI we like. What if your friend, Bob, who owns the bar could simply contribute to the POI if he is happy with it? Due to the nature of blockchain technology the original POI would have to be deleted and a new POI (smart contract) with tokens from two wallets would have to be created. But FOAM could just make that happen on the backend and to the user it could look like they are adding to existing POI. (All the info stays the same just two wallets contributing to the POI now. Bob pays for the gas to make this happen.) Friendly co-staking would make the POI even more visible than either one of you could have done alone.

If, as you pondered, Bob is not happy with the present POi Bob could submit suggested changes to you, Jim - the present POI owner, who could accept Bob’s changes and pool with Bob to create a new POI with the new updated info. Or, if you don’t like Bob’s suggestions you, Jim, may choose to reject them. If you reject the new suggested changes and additional tokens Bob may then want to go through the current challenge procedure.

Question: Does that ability, to pool tokens with others in a POi, open the system up to some kind of attack from malicious actors who want to creat a very high profile inaccurate POI? Just trying to think of possible ramifications of co-staking in a POI.


Good question. I would like to see a form and a short guide to help people who challenge and help people who are trying to defend; a guide about how to best present their case to the community.

The guide might say something like…

Explain to the community why your challenged POI should win.

Some things you may want to address:

Does your POI have the
-Best POI placement
-Most accurate name
-Correct spelling in all fields of the POI
-Correct phone number
-Correct website
-A description that offers unique, valuable, accurate and/or entertaining information?
-Are you the owner of the location?

What else do you think is important to explain to the community in a challenge?

I didn’t put “was your POI created first” because I don’t think being first has anything to do with building an accurate map. In fact, older POIs harbour greater risk of losing their relevance and accuracy. Maintenance of the map and regular updates to the map are vital.


This is how it currently works. Anyone can stake tokens on a verified POI. Oh, and his name is Dermot :slight_smile:


…or maybe it’s not. Just for yuks (and because I do have to use these tokens) I decided to add tokens to my employer’s headquarters, which is a POI. I coulda sworn there was a button to allow that even if it wasn’t a POI I created. I was wrong. Bummer.


We’re actually looking into a feature like this to allow users to stake on top of an existing POI! There will also in the future be “Soft Challenges” which allows users to challenge to change certain details and Editing allowed for a POI owner.


This could be in its own thread all by itself! Great points that you brought up here Kilo.


A “soft challenge” could be called a “nudge”. (Just a semantics suggestion for marketing/UX)


Daryl “nudged” Kilo
Kilo “challenged” Daryl

Hmmm might be cool !


Good suggestion @kilo


Should shoddy or half hearted information be grounds for challenge? I was creating detailed and thorough POIs of the bridges of a city. Someone noticed this and placed quick POIs with very little info. It is accurate, but me being interested in bridge architecture, the info says nothing of the place. If it is labeled as an “attraction”, shouldn’t there be enough info on why that is so? It seems the sole motivation was to “map it first”. Given that POIs don’t actually have strong incentivization directly, it seems petty to block me from doing systematic and good work for sake of beating me to the pass.

So is that grounds for a challenge? And should I then submit my own and better POI?

Also, challenges take a week. POIs take a few days. Is it standard practice to wait till a challenge is concluded to register ones own POI?