Hi, > Some time ago there was discussion about roads which really > do not have names vs. roads which have names but they are not yet > entered.
A problem we'll see in many other places as well - e.g. a junction that has no turn restrictions vs. a junction that just doesn't have them entered yet. Which is the harder case since the majority of junctions don't have turn restrictions (whereas the majority of roads do have names). > There > is also a separate OpenStreetBugs service for informing on any > errors on the > map. Tagwatch is another tool that can be used for QA. However, I > think that at > the moment it is very hard to find out, let's say, all the features > in one city > that needs verification. Well, the ITO tools at least offer you a graphical representation of the "age" of mapping in a user-defined area so you can check whether it's fresh or not. Of course it would also be possible to generate lists of objects coming up for "revalidation" - restaurants once a year, roads once every 5 years, and pot joints once a week. > Any thoughts about how to make it easier? Should > there be an annexed quolity control report that is linked to OSM > feautures by > feature id? Or could each tag has an quality assurance tag like > True='I know > this information is OK', False='This information is uncertain'? I would like to have that information separate from the rest because it is not data about the real world but data about our data. If I were to tag a way with the information "this way needs verification becaus it has not been edted in the last 2 years" then I would edit the way by doing so... What you're speaking of is a huge amount of work if one wants to do it properly. I have no doubts that we'll manage to map the world once, but will we be able to map it again every 5 years, essentially, to verify? I don't know. I have been thinking about a system where you do not wait for people to take responsibility and say "this way is correct as of <date>, signed <name>", instead turn this around: The quality of an area is not defined by the number of quality assertions, but by the absence of error reports! Suppose you have a really easy error reporting mechanism right on our central map page, a big fat "report error here" button. Suppose that you cleverly analyse log files (and those of mirrors/caches obviously), so you know how many people have looked at a certain area within the last month (and perhaps even how long they have looked). Then you can say: "150 people have looked at the map you're seeing without reporting an error". Of course only a fraction of viewers will notice an error and only a fraction of those will report it, but if the numbers are high enough, you should get reliable statistical effects. > OSM quality supervisors *shudder* ;-) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
