At 2010-05-31 10:57, Frederik Ramm wrote: >Anthony wrote: > > By these definitions, something that is able to be confirmed as true or > > false in an official online source is actually *more* verifiable than > > something written on a street sign in a place where Google Street View > > has not yet visited. It certainly is verifiable, and it is not > > necessarily "on the ground". > >Something that is available from an official online source but not >verifiable on the ground should not - in my personal opinion - be >included in OSM.
When something looks "suspicious", though, and you find out that the sign is wrong, I believe it is reasonable to note that for recheck, in case the sign gets fixed. I have found such errors and told the relevant authorities, all of whom indicate that they will fix the sign. I use name, loc_name, official_name, note, and FIXME, to handle the various names and notes, usually using name for the signed name (or the "more correct" of them, if the signage is inconsistent). >But OSM is not a "mirror" for official data. I suppose then, it is a mirror of the mirror of official data (that being the signage), which doesn't sound good, does it? >I don't want data that >OSMers cannot work with; such data would only be in OSM for ease of >retrieval, and I don't view OSM as some data dumpster for the world's >geodata. Agreed. Most bulk imports to an existing mapped area should be discouraged. Even TIGER09, which looked much better than earlier data, still has significant problems. I only use it in small areas of new development, and even then, it takes a lot of work to connect with existing data. -- Alan Mintz <alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net> _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
