# Discussion I: Quality is the coherence of four things
Lots of good news but some bad.
Another way to look at the quality of the OSM data is the coherence of four
things:
1. What is found on the ground (real life)
2. The actual tagging found in OSM dataset
3. The Australian Tagging Guidelines and OSM Wiki standards
4. Laws and regulations in that state/territory
The first is hardest to check and is business as usual with OSM.
The last two can be reviewed (law review) at regular intervals (annually) and
Australian Tagging Guidelines updated for that state/territory accordingly
(easy to do).
The second, the actual tagging, is the cause of the quality issues in the ACT.
The other three appear to be pretty good, but the actual tagging of paths in
the ACT is inconsistent. The lack of coherence with the other three is a
quality issue.
My latest estimate is 95% of the paths do not comply with the Australian
Tagging Guidelines. The Australian Tagging Guidelines do seem to be consistent
with ACT law. That’s a big positive.
The issue here is the inconsistency of the mappers. That’s you and me as a
group. Have you ever seen a bunch of five-year-olds play football? This is the
problem we have. 😊
I am sure that it can be improved.
## QUESTION
Why does this happen?
I welcome your comments.
Keywords: Australia, ACT, quality, law, ATG, consistency, root cause analysis
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
