> > OpenStreetMap values community cohesion over data perfection. > > Could both terms be more elaborated on? > Does "data perfection" in practice mean "adding true but not really > useful things, often in not-well-thought-out way"? > Because otherwise, we should strive to be perfect.
Ah, this is exactly where i start whipping out classic references to Jorge Luis Borges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Exactitude_in_Science "In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters." The wording here was an attempt not to set OSM up for a cultural fall by saying anything along the lines of "data quality is not as important to us as successful community". Suggestions for easier wording of this statement, on the Talk page for the draft, would be appreciated. I see this point has already been raised there: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:How_We_Map#Community_cohesion _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk