You cite a lot of good examples of OSM data that are not "pure binary facts", and I could think of a few more. But I'm not sure what the intent of this demonstration is. Open the eyes of the "OSM is pure facts" crowd ? Debate whether this is a trait of OSM we want to minimise ? Figure out ways to spot and/or limit subjective data ?
I think it's safe to say that the community wants the data to be as factual as possible (ignoring the presumably rare intentionally biased contributors here). Cue the endless discussions and docs that we write to specify how to map this or that in ever greater details. I'd love to improve the process of documenting interpretation margins away, but I'm afraid it'll always remain very laborious. It'd be arguably even more important to be able to spot "bias vandalism" but, appart from the preventative measures that are being discussed in another thread (declaring paid contributions, which is important but weak in scope/enforcability), I can't think of a better tool than our current "many eyes" strategy. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
