-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 wer-ist-roger wrote: > Am Donnerstag 26 Juni 2008 schrieb Frederik Ramm: >>> * Another hypothesis is that more complete areas of OSM will >>> have a higher level of edit activity. >> Then there are those who say that an area that's complete doesn't >> require any edit activity... > > That is right that "complete" areas might not gany much edits (or maybe no > edits at all) but you can see that on the edit history you will get a > submit-curve that has a lot of edits within a timeperiod until you get at > thet point it's getting less end less till you have almost no edits at all. > > So a calculation should allways include the history of submitted changes. >
Indeed, that curve of much editing -> less editing should be a factor in the completeness measure - an area with much activity in the past + some more recent would be good, an area with no edits at all for 2 years is ripe for a check-over, an area with no history is clearly not good. Landuse=field is perhaps an example of the exception that proves the rule? I still think it would be useful for an overlay to exist for mappers to mark up where they consider done, perhaps that & an auto-layer should combine to make a more visible 3rd layer of completeness where they agree? We could start by filling this public layer with coastline data & mark the seas as done, at least - unless we want to get full marine data in as well? Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIZmF7JfMmcSPNh94RAj8AAJwKi2OWzcWKzHoKkBDSszfF73hrMQCcCtm6 oYevRaoNA00yrTvL7Qqnk3M= =P35M -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk