Hi, IMHO missing stuff is some kind of error and it might be correct to store that information in a note. But it's more complex than "just add a note and we'll do the rest".
Adding a note even as a personal note for adding it later is a valid action, if e.g. don't have the time to do more now or don't have an editor at hand - provided I'm going to resolve that myself later. Adding a note that something is missing in some place is valid, if I know that there's something missing, but don't exactly know where it is (only very rough location, only know that there's one shop missing, but don't know any details yet,...). Here the note is a temporal thing to be replaced after an on-the-ground visit. Adding a note where adding the feature itself is too complex for my own experience (e.g. holes in buildings missing (multipolygons), route relations with missing detours...) is valid. What's not wanted - but better than nothing - are examples like the ones you refer to in your later mail: "here is address x", "here's my business: foo-store, ...", these should be as simple to be added directly as to add the note, and therefore yes, it would be better the people would add them directly to the osm database instead. On the other hand it depends... OSM has lot's of contributors joining osm, adding their own business as a single-node item, and never doing more. If we motivate these people to add more stuff around, e.g. to improve routing to their business, to get a better looking map around their business or something like that it's great, but if we have more mappers that don't come back at all, why should that be preferred over adding a note, that there's a business missing? I prefer a note over a florist mapped as supermarket, as it's easier to solve the note (if all necessary information is included) than to find errors in wrong data like that. tl;dr: it's not as easy as to say "register and add yourself", it's more complex, but missing stuff is an error in OSM, something that has to be fixed and in general *might be* valid use cases for an osm note. regards Peter Am 28.03.2014 03:50, schrieb Jason Ward: > Hi Team, > > I've been doing some SuperUser edits in 4sq recently and poked my head into > the OSM page they hold on their site (https://foursquare.com/about/osm) and > its slightly at odds with the messaging I have been using when resolving > notes I have deemed as irrelevant to use and I thought I'd clarify with > this group to see whether I need to: > > a) Adjust my messaging when resolving notes [1]; OR > b) Don't resolve notes that indicate something should be added or is an > ommission; OR > c) Ask 4sq to amend their copy to better reflect OSM Note usage. > > So. The OSM Wiki [2] for notes indicates in its first para that notes are > for "errors" and I have taken that quite literally when assessing notes and > in resolving something that is "missing" from OSM I have indicated that > notes are for "errors". My behaviour may be having a negative effect on > these note authors coming from 4sq so I'm keen to ensure I don't > unecessarily turn people away from OSM if I shouldn't be. > > Any thoughts here? Is the first para in the OSM Wiki at odds with the Dos > and Don't section on the same page? One suggests errors and the other > suggest errors and missing information. > > > [1]: I usually resolve Notes with Business Details suggesting that they are > for Errors rather than Ommissions. > [2]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes > > > Cheers, > > Jason > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
