Florian Lohoff wrote: >Sent: 12 May 2008 8:29 PM >To: Inge Wallin >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help >provide"completeness" tools > >On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 07:06:20PM +0200, Inge Wallin wrote: >> Yes, but it would be good if we planned for at least some of the >subsequent >> levels right from the start. > >I support this idea - I would call them levels as some areas might work >completely different. I would call the different completenesses like > >roadcomplete >cyclewaycomplete >roadnamecomplete >landusecomplete >
There is no reason why contributors could not decide what the list should be. It's clear then to everyone what has and has not been mapped and gives the mapper a sense of achievement even if they weren't ever interested in mapping areas for instance. Someone can add that level of completeness later. >etc ... I have no idea about the granularity but in the end it comes >down to a map never containing ALL interesting data but it would be >interesting to note which subset it contains or is complete. > >The completeness is more or less a feeling of the primary mapper of >this specific area so it should be taken with a grain of salt i guess. Yes, Its not a substitute for secondary verification. Cheers Andy > >But this information would be interesting for a map bug tracker which >could assign higher prioritys to bugs in "complete" areas or even refuse >to accept bugs in incomplete areas. > >Flo >-- >Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-171-2280134 > Those who would give up a little freedom to get a little > security shall soon have neither - Benjamin Franklin > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1429 - Release Date: >12/05/2008 6:14 PM _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
