On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 21:46, OSM Volunteer stevea <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Jarek. Considering I am a proponent of "perfection must not be the > enemy of good" (regarding OSM data entry), I think data which are "darn good, > though not perfect" DO deserve to enter into OSM. Sometimes "darn good" > might be 85%, 95% "good," as then we'll get it to 99% and then 100% over > time. But if the focus on "how" isn't sharp enough to get it to 85% (or so) > during initial entry, go back and start over to get that number up. 85% > sounds arbitrary, I know, but think of it as "a solid B" which might be > "passes the class for now" without failing. And it's good we develop a > "meanwhile strategy" to take it to 99% and then 100% in the (near- or at most > mid-term) future. This isn't outrageously difficult, though it does take > patience and coordination. Open communication is a prerequisite.
Thank you for this commitment. I wish others shared it. Unfortunately the reality I've been seeing in OSM is that edits which are 90+% good (like this import) are challenged, while edits which are 50+% bad (maps.me submissions, wheelmap/rosemary v0.4.4 going to completely wrong locations for _years_) go unchallenged or are laboriously manually fixed afterward. --Jarek _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
