On Jan 12, 2008 3:48 PM, Chris Morley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Earl wrote: > > I've said before and I'll say again: we need a way of > > asserting "this area is complete" (for one or more > > definitions of completeness). > > Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote: > > The only way that we are going to individually or > > collectively state the completeness of a specific area > > is to carry out a verification process. It doesn't have > > to be done by third parties or even different contributors > > but it does need to be done by someone. > > We need a simple tag to display verification, perhaps > > the username and a date, say verification=blackadder_20080111 > > or similar. > > Martin Trautmann wrote: > > Is OSM that far that we need verification and quality ensurance? > > We are still far from completeness, which might be a primary goal. > > I have started a new thread with a measure for completeness in the title > because this is an important topic for OSM. But the response to the > recent posts quoted above, and my raising of it last July, has been only > luke-warm. > > I wonder whether this is because "completeness" is associated in > people's minds too closely with verification. As Andy has describes it > in the (incomplete) quote above, verification involves individual > accountability - "I personally accept responsibility for the accuracy of > this data". I don't think this is suitable for OSM at the moment; it may > be necessary in the future if and when OSM becomes a serious alternative > to commercial suppliers - but not yet. I, and probably others, are eager > to make their contributions of as high quality as possible, but are wary > about making a public and personal commitment to their accuracy. > > As is the case for all other mapping information, an assertion of > completeness should only imply the best endeavours of the contributor, > not a guarantee of 100% correctness. If you have ridden round a housing > estate systematically and collected all the required information, you > can reasonably say the area covered is complete. With this > understanding, completeness would become part of routine mapping. It > would encourage a systematic approach and the collection of any missed > information. > > A possible detailed approach is as follows. A completeness boundary > would be modelled on coastline: it would enclose an area, but would > consist of many (ordinary) ways, with the completed area on the right. > They would be tagged with one (or possibly more) definitions of > completeness like "major roads", "public roads", "public paths", which > would be defined on a wiki page. Boundary ways would be moved or added > on a day-to-day basis by anybody with local knowledge. An area might > even have holes in it. Somebody would provide an overview map showing > completed areas, and its animation would feature in most presentations > on OSM. > > OSM really needs a measure for local completeness to demonstrate its > progress externally. I hope enough people can be roused to discuss, and > hopefully agree, the principles, before deciding on an implementation. >
In a sense I'm already doing this. The very last thing I do when I've completed an area is to add landuse=residential (only where appropriate, of course). I could easily add complete=level-n to this landuse boundary. 80n > > Chris > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk