I think the data we are collecting breaks down into two sorts: 1) where stuff is 2) what stuff is
The "where stuff is" is the hard part - it is done by trogging round with a GPS (and deciphering the resulting track), memory from visiting, or (least hard, but subject to systematic error) tracing from the underlays. All of it requires some judgement. If someone messes this up it's a pain to fix unless you get there in time to simply reverse the changes; otherwise you're back to scratch. Whereas the "what stuff is" is easier to source (and multi-source). It's easier to use the power of crowds. Which is a roundabout way of saying that I think there could happily be newbie limits on editing/deleting (as opposed to adding) "where stuff is" info, but I think we could be a bit more cavalier about "what stuff is" info. I don't think we need a huge construct of newbie-edit reviews. Either ban newbies outright from editing/deleting locational stuff more than a few metres, or develop a tool that flags such edits for review (to the newbie in the first instance, to make them think twice). Turning off these warnings could even be entirely in the user control - once they've found it in an obscure corner of the editor's settings. To summarise the summary - we are not wikipedia, we have major class differences in the types of info we collect, and we should use that, rather than copying wikipedia's approach. Richard
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
