On 2 May 2015 at 23:05, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > On 2015-05-02 23:28, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > We collect observations. >> > > ... > > There is >> no way for the mapper on the ground to know that the name on the >> building "should" be something else. >> > > I think that sounds rather disingenuous. We humans are perfectly capable > of correctly interpreting data which contains errors, and recognising what > the error is. And there are plenty of types of information in OSM which are > not (easily) verifiable on the ground - admin boundaries spring to mind. > The important thing in my mind is that the information should be > independently verifiable from publicly accessible (and appropriately > licensed) sources, thus making the information objective. Of course the > signs on the ground come into that category, but they are not necessarily > superior to other valid sources. > > There are plenty of spelling and grammatical mistakes on public signs, and > although we are not the world's signage police, we should not be in the > business of propagating obvious errors either. > > You mentioned "quality" in another post; that implies "the extent of > adherence to agreed criteria" it's a problem that we cannot yet measure the > quality of our data because there is no consensus on what is "good" and > what is not. That's why these discussions go round and round and round for > a couple of weeks and then die off. There seems to be little motivation or > drive to reach a clear conclusion. We don't even manage to work out *how* > to determine what is "good". It's time we grew the balls we need to have > the very painful talk about good data vs. bad data, followed by finding the > right balance between quality and quantity. Quality itself can be > subjective. What's fit for my purpose may break the data's usability for > yours. And yet there is only one OSM data set. What are we going to agree > to put in there, to keep the majority of people "happy"? What is our shared > definition of quality? > > //colin > > HERE HERE.
Having said that, I fear the grey area is almost as large as a popular blue-green planet. I think whatever is decided as being the correct way can only end up being a guide. There's always the possibility the correct way will change in time as we learn. The correct way needs to be easily accessible too - to all - especially newbies to OSM. It seems iD is the preferred newbie editor so that needs to be designed to guide all in using correct ways. When we come across incorrect signs, how big a deal is it to point them out and at least start the ball rolling to get them corrected ? As a keen data observer, I'm doing it - even correcting Ordnance Survey. -- Mike. @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property & pets* T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail>
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
