What is a discussion brief?
A discussion brief serves to describe comprehensively what we know before we go
on to review an issue in OSM. The objective is to decide how to solve a nagging
problem. I resist in saying the “best way” as I think often there may be no
golden rule to be found.
I think it enough that OSM is consistent and that we have a definition of
quality. Quality is important because when we are trying “improve” OSM it is
often “quality” issues, but if there is no consensus of what quality is, then
there will be differing opinions on what to do. This is one of the reasons that
discussion can become quite circular: the same word means to different people
different things.
Therefore, please go through the facts presented at the top of this brief and
the quality definition and try to find fault with it. The information should be
true and factual. The quality definition should be complete (nothing missing)
and fit for the purpose described in the brief.
The next step is the review of the OSM guidelines and Australia guidelines.
Everybody in OSM knows something of these. Even beginners need to know some
basics. This section is intended to provide a level playing field: it is a
reminder and education all in one. I hope this helps get the participation of
the widest possible audience, not just the knockers. Again, please go through
the facts presented in this section and suggest corrections if any errors are
found.
The next section of the discussion brief will present a problem with
inconsistency or quality found in OSM and specifically in the ACT, which is my
area of interest. The purpose is to reconcile what is in OSM with the
guidelines and other known facts (laws and regulations) to decide what is the
best way to proceed. I think in most cases, the decision will be to revert to
the guidelines. There is an issue here that the guidelines are often ambiguous
or even conflicting. This can be resolved by changes to state, country or
general guidelines. Considering all the work already done, I think guidelines
are in many cases likely to be serviceable and that the problem is more likely
to arise from poor or inconsistent implementation. A social solution is then
best which involves bringing the current generation of mappers for the area up
to speed, once again. This is a perpetual task.
The final step is to fix the problem. Going into OSM and mapping is the least
of my concerns. OSM mappers do that very well and it is the reason that OSM is
so successful. Another task that may arise from time to time is updating OSM
guidelines. This is a wiki job and not suited to everybody. Any football team
has only one goalkeeper but many players on the field. Wiki is like that. You
need some people doing it but many more mapping. We would hope, that the wiki
guidelines are the first place that the mapper goes, but if not, then it will
guide future controversy. At the very least, this process should feed some
mapper experience back improving the guidelines.
This process could be done for other states and countries, but I am not getting
personally involved in that. I would like to thank, however, the many people
who do map areas they have never been and never likely to go. This makes the
OSM task a lot easier for the rest of us.
I hope to release the first discussion brief soon.
Discussion C: Two steps forward and one step back - confusion about tagging
bike tracks in the ACT.
I look forward to your contributions.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
