Kate Chapman <k...@maploser.com> writes: > Hi All, > > So I met with a group looking to link OSM data to other data. Meaning > have a link that says this village in OSM is equivalent to this > village in these 3 other datasets. Part of this process involves > having metadata for everything. > > The people I met with asked me a question I hadn't been asked before: > "What do people prefer the OSM data be described as in the metadata?" > > So for example crowdsourced infromation, volunteered geographic > information, non-authoritative data, or something else?
I think crowdsourced is accurate. Volunteer is not quite right, because we don't know how many people are being paid to put information into OSM. Certainly that happens, and it's not a problem. In looking at the essence of what makes OSM unique, the non-paid status of most mappers is not really the point; it's that anyone can map. I would avoid non-authoritative, because it's a loaded word that drags in all sorts of connotations, particularly about accuracy. Certainly there is a meaning where data is authoritative if published by the entity responsible for setting the facts, e.g. street names in towns. Then there is road centerline data from state DOTs, which is one step removed. The elephant in the room, however, is data like NAVTEQ and Tele Atlas, which is similar to OSM in that it is produced privately (or imported from DOT sources). However, I would expect that some like to claim that NAVTEQ data is "authoritative" and OSM data is "non-authoritative", and I think OSM should avoid self-labeling as non-authoritative.
pgpLy3ebYaE2C.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
