David Earl wrote: > I've said before and I'll say again: we need a way of > asserting "this area is complete" (for one or more > definitions of completeness).
Chris Morley wrote: > A possible detailed approach is as follows. A completeness boundary > would be modelled on coastline: it would enclose an area, but would > consist of many (ordinary) ways, with the completed area on the right. > They would be tagged with one (or possibly more) definitions of > completeness like "major roads", "public roads", "public paths", which > would be defined on a wiki page. Boundary ways would be moved or added > on a day-to-day basis by anybody with local knowledge. An area might > even have holes in it. Somebody would provide an overview map showing > completed areas, and its animation would feature in most presentations > on OSM. I like the idea, but agree it definitely needs the multiple (documented) definitions of completeness. I'd personally like to reach an annotated map of all the footpaths to say what they're like, but this is silly without getting the road coverage in an area first. Also agree this should be be done before 'verification'. But maybe the annotation for that could piggyback on the same system once it's tested and bugs ironed out. The former would lead toward the latter, I would think. Particularly since you couldn't verify anything without a documented definition of the claimed completeness anyway. Tom _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
