> > On 26 Nov 2012, at 09:58, Pieren <pier...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Kate Chapman <k...@maploser.com> wrote: >> >>> So for example crowdsourced infromation, volunteered geographic >>> information, non-authoritative data, or something else? >> >> Crowdsourced non-authoritative geographic data ? > > I'm personally not sure I agree with the non-authoritative part. Half the > point of OpenStreetMap is that it's made by authorities on the subject of > their local area. Of course, I guess that doesn't hold for all editors.
OSM is not authoritative in the sense that it is not the "owner" of data which has its origins elsewhere. I am speaking from a data architecture perspective, not about copyright/licensing. We cannot guarantee completeness/correctness/timeliness. If someone is looking for "authoritative" data (with guaranteed quality) they must go back to the source, and not some database which was probably nearly correct at one time based on best efforts from thousands of volunteers. The key question is "who decides", e.g. what a new road is to be called or where a boundary lies. They are the only authoritative source, everything else is a derivative. If derivative sources are suitably managed, they are frequently "good enough", but that doesn't make them "authoritative". Colin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
