On 01/11/2014 12:04, David Woolley wrote:
A very recent, topical, case is that Matthijs has added map notes for
a lot of premises that he assumes are shops of a particular brand
suggesting that they may need tagging in a particular way. This has
completely negated the purpose of using the map notes, which was to
avoid making changes to the actual map based on unverified assumptions.
In significant parts of the country it is now as though Matthijs had
actually made those changes.
One, random, example, from one of the main armchair mappers involved
is <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1693488257>. This is a change
of shop type but they have also added shop=* when there was none there
before.
In these cases a real survey may actually find that the shop has gone
or been re-branded, as well as the possibility it isn't the well known
brand, isn't a shop, or is an unusual shop for the brand.
To be fair to Matthijs, I suspect that he added a nap note rather than
just armchairing the change himself so that someone who was familiar
with the area could edit based on local knowledge, or that someone local
could survey.
It's not his fault if an armchair mapper appears to engage editor before
brain and applies changes suggested by notes. In order to try and avoid
people being overcome by temptation, I very often** say "needs survey"
in the text of the note. To be fair to armchair mappers, they may be
new to the project and may not even be familar with the _concept_ of
surveying, and until someone tells them that actually "going out to have
a look at something" is the best way of finding out what's actually
there now, they won't necessarily be aware of the issues (redevelopment,
misleading and offset imagery, etc.) that people who've been mapping for
years take for granted.
Cheers,
Andy
** http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/notes
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
