If you are looking for an aesthetic metric for quality, you are probably
looking for a human to evaluate quality. I would argue that most of the
cities in North America (save Boston and maybe Toronto) quality is poor
because there just isn't enough content. New York is a wicked example
of no data == low quality.
If you were trying to compare more equal cities (say London and Paris or
San Fran and LA) you could build your own proxy for "quality" - number
of bits of data per POI or number of non-manifold ways per km^2. You
could use the turn right error density. In my own city, I often view
quality as how any POI's are obsolete (gas station closed but POI is
still present), park amenity density (are the trails and features
marked?) and missing roads. None of that can easily be measured without
a human on the ground.
John
On 11-08-23 1:53 AM, Jaakko Helleranta.com wrote:
Stupid(?) question:
Does this merely look at data density in the given areas?
My observation from nearly a year in Haiti says that I wouldn't draw
any solid link between data quantity/density and quality. It may (or
may not) seem that in general where there are active communities then
OSM data is also of good quality and density can be seen as a general
proxy(?) for map (database) quality but it's also clear that a lot of
data can also simply mean a lot of crap.
Cheers,
-Jaakko
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
