Frederik Ramm <frederik <at> remote.org> writes: > 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.
It is big amount of annoying work. In a somehow analogous GIS production system we need one full-time supervisor for every 10-15 digitizers. > 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. Extra easy reporting system souds good. Perhaps something that could be used without a need to register, but that still sends nodes with error reports to the main database so that they could be queried with all the OSM editing tools? > > OSM quality supervisors > *shudder* I share the feeling actually. But I bet that you have heard questions like How complete/accurate/reliable OSM data are, haven't you? > Bye > Frederik > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
