> > I exaggerate to make a point, obviously. As far as I can see, there > is no reputation mechanism whereby experienced editors stand out from > the noob editors, and the latter are reluctant to change the former's > edits. And by definition if I don't know about it, it doesn't exist. > In hindsight, I think that I proposed "immutable=yes" as a primitive > and binary reputation mechanism. If anybody has any better ideas, I'd > love to hear them. > It was mentioned before, and I think that it is a possible way forward: tag some kind of quality mark with the data. This could be made up of HDOP, VDOP, PDOP, TDOP and Number of satellites. This could be automatic tags if the gpx data allowed it (some GPX specs do allow for quality) but AFAIK most gps loggers don't save this data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDOP The vehicle tracking application that I manage simply uses the number of satellites as a rough indication of the health of the position, where <4 bad, 5/6 ok 6+ is good. People understand 'number of satellites' where DOP confuses, and ±100m makes it look really bad. A bit like the 'fuzzy' tag with translation using gettext tools, if there is high quality data it could me marked as fuzzy=nope_this_is_spot_on Or simply some kind of quality tag, which could be the max distortion of the point in meters. That way, when the whole world is mapped and we all have nothing left to do, we can filter out all the nodes where quality > 10m and go and make them better :-) _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
