This would fit in very well with the annotation system discussed in
the 'Recent Edits' thread not too long ago.
--
martijn van exel -+- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -+- http://www.schaaltreinen.nl/
Op 3 feb 2008, om 20:16 heeft Dirk-Lüder Kreie het volgende geschreven:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE---
Chris Morley wrote:
> I have started a new thread with a measure for completeness in the title
> because this is an important topic for OSM. But the response to the
> recent posts quoted above, and my raising of it last July, has been only
> luke-warm.
I've added http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/ind
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> Whereever possible I'd like to try and have this completeness assessed
> by people *other* than those who did the mapping; maybe through a web
> interface where casual visitors can check their area of residence and
> rubber-sta
Some comments regarding the completeness thread:
For Munich we currently use wiki pages to track the completeness:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Landkreis_M%C3%BCnchen (in German
but Google translates it quite ok). Wiki pages were used because
they are simpler to set up than anything
What about one indicator of completness being automatic: How many key/value
pairs per way or node.
So you have the standard: this is claimed to be 80% complete by user:Bob (or
this is validated to be 75% complete/accurate by user:Fred)
Then you have addtionally: this as information to a level of 20
Dair Grant wrote:
> Good point! Which makes it all the more important to have a
> mechanism for marking it as such, if only to reduce the number
> of people who make pointless trips to the middle of nowhere to
> confirm there's nothing there...
There are very few places with "nothing" in them.
graham wrote:
> 80n wrote:
>
>> In a sense I'm already doing this. The very last thing I do when I've
>> completed an area is to add landuse=residential (only where appropriate,
>> of course). I could easily add complete=level-n to this landuse boundary.
>>
>
> Surely completeness is relative t
On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 19:08 +, graham wrote:
> Surely completeness is relative to purpose? I have areas where all roads
> between settlements are filled in but not the settlements, other urban
> areas where all roads are filled in and named, others where all roads
> and footpaths are complete.
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
[]
> Rather than creating special ways, just to show completeness, why not
> mark the ways that are already there with weather or not they are
> completely connected. I.e. I know that all the roads and footpaths that
> connect to my road are on the map, so I could put a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Morley wrote:
| David Earl wrote:
| > I've said before and I'll say again: we need a way of
| > asserting "this area is complete" (for one or more
| > definitions of completeness).
|
| Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
| > The only way that w
Chris Morley wrote:
> OSM really needs a measure for local completeness to demonstrate its
> progress externally. I hope enough people can be roused to discuss, and
> hopefully agree, the principles, before deciding on an implementation.
Would it make any sense at all to consider it from the oth
graham wrote:
> Surely completeness is relative to purpose?
Sort of - I think you need definitions in terms of content rather than purpose,
just for clarity. But they could obviously be aimed at a purpose.
When I said 'multiple' definitions I definitely had in mind separately defined
levels l
80n wrote:
>
> In a sense I'm already doing this. The very last thing I do when I've
> completed an area is to add landuse=residential (only where appropriate,
> of course). I could easily add complete=level-n to this landuse boundary.
>
Surely completeness is relative to purpose? I have area
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>There are places in OSM where there is no data; these are
>>obviously incomplete.
>
>How would you know ;-) there are places which are complete with
>nothing on them!
Good point! Which makes it all the more important to have a
mechanism for marking it as such, if only to r
Hi,
> There are places in OSM where there is no data; these are
> obviously incomplete.
How would you know ;-) there are places which are complete with
nothing on them!
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
___
Hi,
> OSM really needs a measure for local completeness to demonstrate its
> progress externally. I hope enough people can be roused to discuss, and
> hopefully agree, the principles, before deciding on an implementation.
I'm all for it but I would really try to deduce this completeness from
ex
On Saturday 12 January 2008, Tom Evans wrote:
> David Earl wrote:
> > I've said before and I'll say again: we need a way of
> > asserting "this area is complete" (for one or more
> > definitions of completeness).
>
> Chris Morley wrote:
> > A possible detailed approach is as follows. A completen
David Earl wrote:
> I've said before and I'll say again: we need a way of
> asserting "this area is complete" (for one or more
> definitions of completeness).
Chris Morley wrote:
> A possible detailed approach is as follows. A completeness boundary
> would be modelled on coastline: it would en
Chris Morley wrote:
>I have started a new thread with a measure for completeness in the
>title because this is an important topic for OSM. But the response
>to the recent posts quoted above, and my raising of it last July,
>has been only luke-warm.
I also think completeness is a very important id
On Jan 12, 2008 3:48 PM, Chris Morley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Earl wrote:
> > I've said before and I'll say again: we need a way of
> > asserting "this area is complete" (for one or more
> > definitions of completeness).
>
> Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> > The only way that we
David Earl wrote:
> I've said before and I'll say again: we need a way of
> asserting "this area is complete" (for one or more
> definitions of completeness).
Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> The only way that we are going to individually or
> collectively state the completeness of a speci
21 matches
Mail list logo
