Hi Bob, I don't think OSM will ever institute a locking feature, for the simple reason that identifying responsible organizations would be a nightmare.
However, I think it would be possible for an org like yours to interoperate with a project like OSM by signing or guaranteeing revisions of the data, for example a set of ways as of a given changeset. This would require periodic changeset verification and gardening, but would allow you to roll with the changes even as you observe and verify the changes introduced by other people. The City doesn't have to be the one to edit the actual streets, but it can be the one to offer its seal of approval that the streets are correct. (This gets interesting with paper streets) -mike. On May 31, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) wrote: > Frederic, > > I’ve mentioned this before (and haven’t seen a solution back yet), but a > method for organizations to take responsibility for an area and maintain > specific items in that area. > > I work for the City of Saint Paul. OSM is not of any use to us unless I > upload our data. As an example dataset, let’s use our Street Centerlines, > which we have a lot of time invested in keeping up to date and spatially > accurate. We do this by mandate and get paid to do it. If these features > are added to OSM, there is no way to maintain (keep them locked up edit wise) > for only our staff to adjust. > > We actually want to become the custodians of this type of data (amoung > others) for a particular bounding area, and want others to tell us when the > data is incorrect. Until this type of feature control is in place, it’s not > easy for me to push for OSM adoption at our organization, or others that use > our datasets. > > One thought I had was to host a private OSM service that could be mixed into > the open data side in some manner. I’m open to further discussions on this > topic, and truthfully I haven’t looked back at OSM for over a year now, so > something may be in place for this type of usage that I don’t know about. > > Bobb > > > > From: Geowanking [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Frederic Julien > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 12:22 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Geowanking] OSM Data Quality > > Dear all, > > I'm working on a presentation and interested to hear your thoughts. What are > the top 2-3 changes that could improve OSM data quality? That could be > processes, tools, methods, training, peer review, attributes, etc. > > If this sort of info is available elsewhere let me know. > > Looking forward to your answers. > > Many thanks, > > Frederic > > > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- michal migurski- contact info and pgp key: sf/ca http://mike.teczno.com/contact.html _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
