Hi, On 14.05.2014 11:09, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote: > The focus needs to be on the problem at hand,
"The problem at hand" is currently at a scale that can still be handled on a case-by-case basis; the reason DWG is thinking about a general guideline is not that we're trigger happy bureaucrats but that we'd like everyone to know the rules of play rather than making them up as we go along, and that we assume that the number of such cases might be on the rise. > which I gather is > companies hiring people to map things using their own methodology > incompatible with current OSM tagging guidelines. No, that is one potential issue but by far not the only aspect. Consider a real-life situation like this: * User complains "fictional data is added all over my city!" * Investigation finds 10 accounts having added fictional data; * further investigation finds that 10 other accounts have signed up at the same time from the same network, but have added things that do not immediately look bad (things that might or might not be factual) * reaching out to those who edited the most brings zero reply (possibly because their native language is not English nor anything spoken by anyone in DWG) Even reconstructing the whole situation takes quite a bit of time; and then we have to decide which bits to revert and which to keep. Is this a course that was misunderstood, or just organized doodling, or what? How can we reach the teacher (if any)? In this specific instance we decided to revert everything contributed by the whole group - surely not the optimum outcome for an OSM training course! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
