On Mi, Jun 11, 2014 at 03:35:23 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 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.
Of course you can not guarantee that they are "individually verified", that is kind of my point. Why do I have to guarantee something that somebody tracing buildings from 10 year old aerial images doesn't have to guarantee? Everybody has to do a reasonable amount of checking, but not more. Why single some out? If were an absolute requirement for on-the-ground-checking, we'd have to outlaw half the work mappers do. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.jochentopf.com/ +49-721-388298 _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
