There are a couple of issues here. The first are our users, we don't normally think about them but deleting the names at the wrong point in OSMAND's cycle could mean missing street names for a period of time.
Second is the problem of some data might be incorrect as a result of the source deliberately using invalid names. The very clean way is to delete then retag. Verifying with a maproulette challenge would work well if we could trust all the mappers not to just tick the box either deliberately or by mistake. Since we have the location of the streets and we have other sources with a valid name which would probably vary by country could someone join the two together and verify the name in an automated way? Leaving a much smaller list of street names to be verified manually? I suspect Jamie could wave a magic wand for Quebec. I'm not saying we should do one thing or another here. I'm attempting to analyse the problem and find a solution that impacts as few people as possible but gives us clean accurate data at the end of the process. If we go the verifying route could we take a page out of HOT's process and have someone verify them someone validate? Cheerio John On 27 Aug 2017 3:04 pm, "Nicolás Alvarez" <nicolas.alva...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't understand what people mean with 'verifying' objects. We're > not trying to find factually-incorrect data. The data is legally > tainted. It's questionable whether looking at the current names > imported from GMaps, comparing to another source, seeing they match > and marking them as "verified" will legally change anything. And it's > impossible to know if people are really verifying anything or just > blindly marking them as verified. > > I think the only clean way to solve this is to redact and then re-map > from legal sources. > > -- > Nicolás > > 2017-08-27 14:39 GMT-03:00 Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org>: > > Steve: > > > > thank you for your work. I'll save your list. It appears that others > > might be eager to do the same, maybe we can find a good workflow for > > that. I wasn't expecting the community to start working on this > > pre-redaction but if people prefer that to fixing issues later, it is of > > course an option. I certainly prefer out-of-band "marking" of verified > > objects to adding a new tag to each! > > > > Tod: > > > > On 08/27/2017 07:31 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > >> When you reviewed Orange County, how did you do it so quickly? The only > way I know to go through this is looking at each one, one at a time. > > > > I could of course make a page with links to the ways, even per county if > > that helps, or we could upload the list to some suitable tool. Ian > > mentioned MapRoulette but I'm not sure if that would make things easier. > > I'm certainly happy to try. Maybe Martijn would like to chip in about > > MapRoulette? > > > > Bye > > Frederik > > > > -- > > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > > > _______________________________________________ > > talk mailing list > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk