Sander, Good point: a missing road in OSM can be a mistake in OSM - or a mistake in Wegenregister!
I'm not sure what the best way would be to deal with a clear mistake. I think there are going to be some cases where we can tag a thing with something indicating that Wegenregister is not more correct then we are (if only to avoid mistakes by remote mappers). That would allow for automatic input for AIV (former Agiv). But sometimes we will have to contact people. As the update process will be largely community responsibility, it's probably going to be a case of contacting the local administration. And when integration is complete, I would suppose it should turn into a GRB-melding. The only thing is that mere citizens aren't really invited to do that. Something to talk to AIV about, I would suppose. We could also build some kind of tool where you can register your progress in comparing OSM to Wegenregister, and create a list of "definitely wrong in Wegenregister" segments for AIV or local administrations to download. Then when it comes to Wegenregister being slightly out of date: that isn't really a mistake, it's more like growing pains. I believe in the future, Wegenregister will contain both "the last measured reality" (GRB) and "planned future situations" (fed from CRAB). In theory, when an as-built plan is delivered, it should be updated immediately. In other cases, it might take until the next GRB update (once or twice a year) until the "future" situation is tagged as "current, measured". So even in the future, there will always be some lag. But for the time being, I think it can easily take a year for changes in the terrain to find their way into the Wegenregister. So there's little point reporting these situations. 2016-07-01 20:15 GMT+02:00 Sander Deryckere <sander...@gmail.com>: > > 2016-07-01 18:53 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe <joost.schou...@gmail.com>: > >> ... >> It should be clear that any competition between Wegenregister and OSM is >> a bit absurd. >> > ... >> > > In contrary, the OSM community has been formed because it was so hard to > access free geographical data. The fact that governments are now opening up > data means that we are doing very well in our quest. Thanks to the work of > every single contributor. > > That said, do watch out when comparing both datasets. One of the first > differences I found shows a track in the wegenregister that definately > doesn't exist: > https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/joostschouppe/...#17.72/50.94482/3.07103 > <https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/joostschouppe/cipy8xm3a006bdnncjuo4jc5g.html?title=true&access_token=pk.eyJ1Ijoiam9vc3RzY2hvdXBwZSIsImEiOiJjaWh2djF1c2owMmJrdDNtMWV2c2Rld3QwIn0.9zXJJWZ4rOcspyFIdEC3Rw#17.72/50.94482/3.07103> > I have seen that track/path drawn on other topographical maps, and > explicitly searched for it, but there's nothing to be found there apart > from a ditch (which certainly isn't suited for walking in). If there's a > place to report those things, please tell me. > > There are also some obvious places where the wegenregister is a bit > outdated. If there's a place to report these things, please tell me ;) > > But all in all, it's a great data source to have available (when everyone > is a bit sensible on comparing the data). So thanks for everyone who helped > making this available. > > Regards, > Sander > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > -- Joost @ Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
