Frederik Ramm wrote: > Improve according to what the person editing it thinks - yes. For > example, and sorry for being pessimistic, I believe that a lot of OSM > contributors would be perfectly capable to insert a few nodes into an > administrative border and move them around just to make the line look > less jagged on the map - "improve" it, as they wold say. > > If their editor would inform them that they are editing the > administrative border as copied from some official publication, then > they still *could* edit the border if they e.g. had information about > said official publication being wrong or outdated, but they would likely > refrain from editing it otherwise. Which I'd find desirable.
Relating mutability to the source of the data makes much more sense than some kind of "this is read-only because I, osm user 123, say it should be and if you change it I'll revert your change" approach. I wouldn't think twice about improving an obviously coarse way whose source was Landsat/NPE, adjusting it to match a better-looking GPS trace. I would think twice about "improving" a way which probably originated from a GPS, although I'd do it if I had a probably-better GPS trace (e.g., captured both sides of a road so could see the old trace was off to one side). I would definitely think twice about improving something which carried a "we got this data from <official source>, are you sure your source is better?" warning. If I had a better official source then replacing the existing way might make sense, but at least I won't degrade a "bad looking" boundary with something that looks better but is actually less correct. -dair ___________________________________________________ d...@refnum.com http://www.refnum.com/ _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
