Martin Koppenhoefer writes:
Yes, I'm saying the same things. In particular, if you ask me about
these huge landuse polygons in Escondido, I don't particularily like
them. I like detailed mapping, and I believe as soon as someone
starts to map the details he'll have to split these polygons into
smaller ones in order to keep maintainability. I don't suggest to
make them multipolygons and to exclude stuff, this would become a
nightmare very soon.
I appreciate the feedback, Martin. Your "don't particularly like
them" is duly and respectfully noted by me and others here.
I like detailed mapping, too. I also accept correct mapping, even if
it might only be mediocre or even crude, though it must be correct,
where that is a little bit fuzzy (yes, it is, in a project with
consensus). I accept mediocre as a "good first draft" or "acceptable
early version." Others, less so. I have found satisfaction (perhaps
"an approach") to this is to improve such data myself, especially
with wider discussion. I have fixed messy map from "no, quality is
much too low, I must do something about it" (and do) to "excellent
map." So, here we are again, perhaps.
We (in the USA) also see significant areas of our map remain
"desert," (sparsely mapped) perhaps (and only partly, among vast
other reasons) because of how much effort it is to map in a detailed
manner. I don't wish deserts to remain if someone can make them
bloom. However, this doesn't mean spilling buckets of paint in
sloppy mechanical fashion because a "kiddie" (novice editor,
especially w.r.t. OSM community standards) wants to "run a script."
We have seen this and it is not pretty. Teachable moments occur here
if we insist upon high quality and make instruction accessible and
workable -- tenets of OSM.
This can be as big an OSM topic as we might like. We can and should
keep open ears as to good, better and best methods of "we have only
rough data now, here are steps to improve them." Done clearly, this
is proven to be a helpful approach to a better map.
High quality data are often an artful edge between "as simply as is
needed to describe them" and "as detailed as we might like them to
be." High quality is to be strived for, and when not achieved, an
opportunity to improve. We can grease the skids of mediocre data
being improved with some effort. Nobody wants "nightmare" data, but
even if you shudder at mediocre data, it is opportunity. First
somebody comes along and plows the field, then somebody comes along
and plants some seeds and then somebody comes along and tends the
garden. It doesn't always work like that everywhere, but it does
work like that. Detailed mapping truly is "longer" work, and we
shouldn't discourage "early" work if quick and crude, though
accurate. Or should we? What have we learned from TIGER?
In the case of landuse= (residential) polygons, we might agree that a
novice volunteer using a more entry level editor like iD who draws
such a polygon around her neighborhood in a crude but accurate
fashion is acceptable. We might also importantly add, going forward
(as areas get peer-reviewed -- what happens) "helpful hints" that
nodes of this polygon shouldn't be merged in with highways, that if
an edge "goes along a road" to exclude the road and other such good
OSM data entry practice as makes sense in the overlap of folks doing
this sort of editing. There could be more of that, but it can be
difficult to make that magically appear in the mind of a novice
editor as it might be presented.
There could be a lot more of such magic in OSM, yet OSM works right
now. I look forward to more, good design coming to fruition. I like
to think that some discussion of how happens here, at least in a
cursory way.
I've seen truly detailed residential mapping where each edge of each
outer parcel boundary stops exactly at the polygon tagged
landuse=residential -- right down to highly accurate beautiful
geometry around a cul-de-sac (for example). Welcome in OSM with open
arms! Let's ask ourselves: do we want to encourage Vicki Volunteer
to draw a landuse=residential polygon around her neighborhood, if she
has good knowledge of it (and imagery, and editing facility and hints
whispered in her ear where it makes sense...) to enter it? I do,
even if results are mediocre or even crude (I wince, I accept).
Only, however, if we agree they are correct.
I don't want to miss capturing that because she is daunted by
perfection of detail. OSM is stepwise.
These can be difficult: to discuss, to agree, to disagree, to reach
consensus, to improve the map, to judge quality, to build good
context-sensitive editor tools... but we must do them anyway.
Let's make more paths for curious novices to become intermediates
(and intermediates experts -- even harder!), emphasizing quality data
entry: skills and knowledge required. We do so now, certainly. And
we grow the map as we build even more of these into the project.
SteveA
California
(Thanks for your patience reading, I admit to being loquacious and
had to get this out there)
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
