Here is yet another example of bad data in our database: -------- Originalmeddelande -------- Från: Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> Skickat: 22 augusti 2020 00:33:24 CEST Till: talk@openstreetmap.org Ämne: Re: [OSM-talk] Use of OSM data without attribution
Curious anecdote: some AllTrails user apparently looked up a phone number for OSM US and called up Maggie. Turns out the complaint was about a trail that I originally mapped *blush*. In my defense, that was 9 years ago, I haven't been to that part of town much since I moved, and nobody else updated the trail, which has since disappeared. Here is the changeset in case you're interested: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89419938 Martijn -- Maybe we should have some kind of system flagging objects that has not been edited for x number of years and rate all objects in the database according to this? This would mean that a data consumer can decide based on the score if they want to include the information or not. E.g. a high quality map should perhaps not contain objects with a revision older than 3 years (and no references or sources) Or even better: we could implement a verification system with a log that can be queried easily. IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTION: GET Openstreetmap.org/api/verifications/ Lists latest added verifications (outputs 10 entries, &offset can be used to get more, &size can be used to output up to 300 entries) GET Openstreetmap.org/api/verifications/1234 Outputs verifications for osmid 1234 with the newest first (outputs 10 entries, &offset can be used to get more, &size can be used to output up to 300 entries) POST Openstreetmap.org/api/verifications/1234 Add a new verification for osmid 1234 On openstreetmap.org we have a new button for every object "Verify this object exists and is correct" which stores the date and userid in the database. In JOSM we could add the possibility to download verification data for all selected objects or from a new option in the download dialog. The latest verification date and count of verifications could be made available in a separate dump. If we had such a system I believe the map data quality could increase considerably by making it dead simple to hide hide old unverified data from e.g. openstreetmap.org. A high-quality map we can be proud of could also give an impetus to local mappers to revisit trails and verify them. WDYT? Cheers pangoSE pangoSE <pang...@riseup.net> skrev: (22 augusti 2020 09:32:09 CEST) >Hi > >80hnhtv4agou--- via talk <talk@openstreetmap.org> skrev: (22 augusti >2020 03:06:37 CEST) > >> >>Also there is no wiki on unverified edits. >> > >In OSM we don't yet have an established system for verification or >accurate machine readable references for the data to my knowledge. > >This means the whole database is basically just a mess of biased data >that one of our millions of editors thought should be included. Most >objects have very few revisions and we have no idea about the overall >quality or correctness. It a playground with half-ass quality more than >an authoritative and verified source of information (like e.g. >Wikipedia). Building upon it can lead to strange things. E.g. >https://www.nyteknik.se/popularteknik/mystisk-jatteskrapa-dok-upp-i-flygsimulator-6999771 >(building:levels=212 was entered erroneously and committed to the >database without any kind of QA follow-up. If someone knows the osmid I >would like to know how long this error was present in OSM) > >We should really fix this and start a verification effort after >implementing a sane verification model. > >_______________________________________________ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
