It is my personal opinion that the level of expertise is less important then the motivation for people to participate and their abbility to adapt. As an example; What is better, a geospatial expert that is conceited or even cocky or a new mapper that has a lot of time and is eager to learn?
Having a diverse crowd looks like the key to success. A crowd that consists of experts only leads to discussion, a crowd that consists of new mappers only mightl lead to less usable data, you need a "perfect mix". Putting in as much effort as possible from all involved is what is needed to reach quantity and quality. Quality is created in phases, molding rough and sometimes wrong activity into valuable information. This is why I oppose the idea of setting a bar. The door should be open to everyone. The focus should be on people who are eager to prticipate and get things done. I do agree that the validation process is a different matter. The validators should preferably be directly involved with the organizing party and be well informed about the information necessary to accept a task as valid. And this doesn't always mean it has to be "perfect geometry" and "everything visible mapped". A hard thing to predefine! Kind regards, -- [image: http://www.dogodigi.net] <http://www.dogodigi.net> *Milo van der Linden* web: dogodigi <http://www.dogodigi.net> tel: +31-6-16598808
_______________________________________________ HOT mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
