2014-06-11 15:06 GMT+02:00 Jochen Topf <joc...@remote.org>: > I think we are probably in agreement here. My "looking at them manually" > might > be a very bad wording, but it meant the same as your much better > "individually > verified". >
I think for most worldwide edits it cannot be guaranteed that they are "individually verified" in a way that merits the word "verification", instead it is highly probable that the mapper's judgement will be based merely on the tags he finds in OSM, and his interpretation of what they might be intended to say (plus aerial imagery). There is no such thing as a "individual verification" other than what you can do and guess from remote. In practical terms this means that you are modifying something that was probably surveyed on the ground based on just your guess what was intended to tag without any knowledge of the context or what is actually there. I agree there are lots of stupid problems like typos or leading and trailing whitespace, but this kind of "normalization" is also removing many fine details and makes it harder to establish alternative tagging schemes. cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
