Re: [OSM-talk] Data Quality - was Re: Chain Store Cleanup

[pmailkeey .]

On 2 May 2015 at 23:05, Colin Smale  wrote:

> On 2015-05-02 23:28, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>  We collect observations.
>>
>
> ...
>
>  There is
>> no way for the mapper on the ground to know that the name on the
>> building "should" be something else.
>>
>
> I think that sounds rather disingenuous. We humans are perfectly capable
> of correctly interpreting data which contains errors, and recognising what
> the error is. And there are plenty of types of information in OSM which are
> not (easily) verifiable on the ground - admin boundaries spring to mind.
> The important thing in my mind is that the information should be
> independently verifiable from publicly accessible (and appropriately
> licensed) sources, thus making the information objective. Of course the
> signs on the ground come into that category, but they are not necessarily
> superior to other valid sources.
>
> There are plenty of spelling and grammatical mistakes on public signs, and
> although we are not the world's signage police, we should not be in the
> business of propagating obvious errors either.
>
> You mentioned "quality" in another post; that implies "the extent of
> adherence to agreed criteria" it's a problem that we cannot yet measure the
> quality of our data because there is no consensus on what is "good" and
> what is not. That's why these discussions go round and round and round for
> a couple of weeks and then die off. There seems to be little motivation or
> drive to reach a clear conclusion. We don't even manage to work out *how*
> to determine what is "good". It's time we grew the balls we need to have
> the very painful talk about good data vs. bad data, followed by finding the
> right balance between quality and quantity. Quality itself can be
> subjective. What's fit for my purpose may break the data's usability for
> yours. And yet there is only one OSM data set. What are we going to agree
> to put in there, to keep the majority of people "happy"? What is our shared
> definition of quality?
>
> //colin
>
>
HERE HERE.

Having said that, I fear the grey area is almost as large as a popular
blue-green planet. I think whatever is decided as being the correct way can
only end up being a guide. There's always the possibility the correct way
will change in time as we learn. The correct way needs to be easily
accessible too - to all - especially newbies to OSM. It seems iD is the
preferred newbie editor so that needs to be designed to guide all in using
correct ways.

When we come across incorrect signs, how big a deal is it to point them out
and at least start the ball rolling to get them corrected ? As a keen data
observer, I'm doing it - even correcting Ordnance Survey.

-- 
Mike.
@millomweb  -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *

*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*

T&Cs 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Data Quality - was Re: Chain Store Cleanup

[Colin Smale]

On 2015-05-02 23:28, Frederik Ramm wrote:


We collect observations.


...


There is
no way for the mapper on the ground to know that the name on the
building "should" be something else.


I think that sounds rather disingenuous. We humans are perfectly capable 
of correctly interpreting data which contains errors, and recognising 
what the error is. And there are plenty of types of information in OSM 
which are not (easily) verifiable on the ground - admin boundaries 
spring to mind. The important thing in my mind is that the information 
should be independently verifiable from publicly accessible (and 
appropriately licensed) sources, thus making the information objective. 
Of course the signs on the ground come into that category, but they are 
not necessarily superior to other valid sources.


There are plenty of spelling and grammatical mistakes on public signs, 
and although we are not the world's signage police, we should not be in 
the business of propagating obvious errors either.


You mentioned "quality" in another post; that implies "the extent of 
adherence to agreed criteria" it's a problem that we cannot yet measure 
the quality of our data because there is no consensus on what is "good" 
and what is not. That's why these discussions go round and round and 
round for a couple of weeks and then die off. There seems to be little 
motivation or drive to reach a clear conclusion. We don't even manage to 
work out *how* to determine what is "good". It's time we grew the balls 
we need to have the very painful talk about good data vs. bad data, 
followed by finding the right balance between quality and quantity. 
Quality itself can be subjective. What's fit for my purpose may break 
the data's usability for yours. And yet there is only one OSM data set. 
What are we going to agree to put in there, to keep the majority of 
people "happy"? What is our shared definition of quality?


//colin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk