Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-29 15:07 UTC

nationalparkservice / places-editor

The easy-to-use OpenStreetMap editor, iD, customized for use by the National Park Service's Places system.

JavaScriptCustom license★ 7 stars⑂ 6 forkssince Oct 2013forkView on GitHub ↗

nationalparkservice/places-editor holds a health index of 20 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (70/100) and lowest on Vitality (17/100). It was last updated 3690 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

20
overall / 100
At Risk

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

20
Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met
Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps
Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable
Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended
Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas
At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution
Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 38 is calibrated to 33 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

242 followers135 public repossince Oct 2011

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

17Critical · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recencylast push 3,690 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push3,690
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases15 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recencylatest release 4,216 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~60.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count15
latest_release_tagv1.7.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release4,216
mean_days_between_releases60.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

22At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
12.6/60Stars7 stars
5.8/25Forks6 forks
6.4/15Watchers15 watchers
Inputs used
forks6
stars7
watchers15
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

70Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 31% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth93 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 59 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled93
top_contributor_share0.311
How it's scored
35.4/42Issue resolution84% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance3/3 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs3
open_issues17
closed_issues92
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.844
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
17.2/25Owner reach242 followers of nationalparkservice
25/25Track record135 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers242
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginnationalparkservice
public_repos135
account_age_days5,433

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

46Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.eslintrc
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.nps.gov/maps/tools/places/
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.nps.gov/maps/tools/places/
docs_sitehttps://www.nps.gov/maps/tools/places/
has_readmeno
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

29At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 59 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate2.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

40Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
9.6/40Legible commit history18 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.18
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.eslintrc
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeJavaScript without a type-check config
54.1/55Manageable file sizes5/314 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes1,442,903
source_files_sampled314
oversized_source_files5

Key facts

7GitHub stars
93contributors
0commits, last 12 months
3,690days since last push
15releases
2bus factor
17open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Community profile unavailable
  • Could not fetch npm package 'places-editor' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 6 ⇿
0Stars
6Forks

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

12345522015-042016-022016-12

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.9 / 10
2.9aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-08-29 15:06 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 59 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 21
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmd33.5.6package.json
npmcsv-parse1.0.0package.json
npmsmash0.0package.json
npmlodash-cli3.10.1package.json
npmuglify-js~2.5.0package.json
npmmaki0.5.0package.json
npmnpmap-symbol-librarygit+https://github.com/nationalparkservice/npmap-symbol-library.git#gh-pagespackage.json
npmeslint~1.7.3package.json
npmmocha~2.3.3package.json
npmmocha-phantomjs~4.0.1package.json
npmmkdirp0.5.1package.json
npmchai~3.4.0package.json
npmsinon~1.17package.json
npmsinon-chai~2.8.0package.json
npmhappen0.2.0package.json
npmglob~5.0.15package.json
npmjs-yaml~3.4.3package.json
npmrequest~2.65.0package.json
npmjsonschema~1.0.2package.json
npmeditor-imagery-indexgit+https://github.com/osmlab/editor-imagery-index.git#gh-pagespackage.json
npmname-suggestion-index0.1.1package.json
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.