The odbl=clean could be a way to exclude road names from the removal, though sources from the info should be given, whether Canvec, Mapillary, OpenStreetCam or local survey
On Aug 27, 2017 3:29 PM, "john whelan" <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote: > There are a couple of issues here. The first are our users, we don't > normally think about them but deleting the names at the wrong point in > OSMAND's cycle could mean missing street names for a period of time. > > Second is the problem of some data might be incorrect as a result of the > source deliberately using invalid names. The very clean way is to delete > then retag. > > Verifying with a maproulette challenge would work well if we could trust > all the mappers not to just tick the box either deliberately or by mistake. > > Since we have the location of the streets and we have other sources with a > valid name which would probably vary by country could someone join the two > together and verify the name in an automated way? Leaving a much smaller > list of street names to be verified manually? I suspect Jamie could wave a > magic wand for Quebec. > > I'm not saying we should do one thing or another here. I'm attempting to > analyse the problem and find a solution that impacts as few people as > possible but gives us clean accurate data at the end of the process. > > If we go the verifying route could we take a page out of HOT's process and > have someone verify them someone validate? > > Cheerio John > > On 27 Aug 2017 3:04 pm, "Nicolás Alvarez" <nicolas.alva...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I don't understand what people mean with 'verifying' objects. We're >> not trying to find factually-incorrect data. The data is legally >> tainted. It's questionable whether looking at the current names >> imported from GMaps, comparing to another source, seeing they match >> and marking them as "verified" will legally change anything. And it's >> impossible to know if people are really verifying anything or just >> blindly marking them as verified. >> >> I think the only clean way to solve this is to redact and then re-map >> from legal sources. >> >> -- >> Nicolás >> >> 2017-08-27 14:39 GMT-03:00 Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org>: >> > Steve: >> > >> > thank you for your work. I'll save your list. It appears that others >> > might be eager to do the same, maybe we can find a good workflow for >> > that. I wasn't expecting the community to start working on this >> > pre-redaction but if people prefer that to fixing issues later, it is of >> > course an option. I certainly prefer out-of-band "marking" of verified >> > objects to adding a new tag to each! >> > >> > Tod: >> > >> > On 08/27/2017 07:31 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: >> >> When you reviewed Orange County, how did you do it so quickly? The >> only way I know to go through this is looking at each one, one at a time. >> > >> > I could of course make a page with links to the ways, even per county if >> > that helps, or we could upload the list to some suitable tool. Ian >> > mentioned MapRoulette but I'm not sure if that would make things easier. >> > I'm certainly happy to try. Maybe Martijn would like to chip in about >> > MapRoulette? >> > >> > 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
