On Monday 08 October 2018, Harry Wood wrote: > [...] > > These tools have been known in OSM as "Quality Assurance" tools. To > Frederik's point, personally I actually think *this* naming, which we > settled on a long time ago, is weirdly over-broad. We should have > called them "data checks" or "data bugs" or something, because surely > "quality" of a map is much more than counting up how many data > glitches there are, and surely it *does* include how complete the map > is (e.g. complete with more rich POI coverage)
Actually what we name quality assurance tools (i.e. Osmose, OSMI and similar) is fairly similar to techniques used in industrial production processes as part of quality assurance and quality management endeavours - with the same advantages and limitations. Like in those cases the term quality assurance is somewhat misleading since watching over process parameters and performing automated checks on its own does not in any way assure a certain level of quality. But detecting and quantifying quality problems is of course the first step towards assuring a certain quality level. And measuring production quantity is usually not part of a quality assurance process - unless it is part of a yield or efficiency measurement, i.e. relative quantity. Of course most of the quality assurance tools we have at the moment only measure plausibility and internal consistency of the data. We have only very few automated QA tools that use any kind of outside reference to gauge accuracy of the data. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk