2018-12-12, tr, 15:47 Andy Townsend rašė: > If you're looking for a project that essentially mirrors "official" data > without actually checking that its valid then OpenStreetMap might not be > the project for you.
I was never for indiscriminate, automated imports without manual checks. Accepting documents as source does not necessary mean allowing such imports. When doing manual checks you can find (and we DO find) errors in official documents. Then OpenStreetMap gets correct data, not official version. I'm also not saying to remove the ground truth rule as such. I'm only saying that the term "ground truth" in the context of non-physical objects must be clarified because currently it is being interpreted in a lot of different ways. What is "ground" in this term for non physical objects: 1. Physical place which could have some traces of an actual object. 2. Ground where non-physical objects actually live - documents. > the general view, which I think we can see from the balance of the posts > in this thread, is that most people back the "on the ground" principle - > if there's a housename that looks like looks like a house name, it's a > house name, even if it's not in an "official" list. Balance of posts could mean one of these: 1. You're right and majority is against usage of documents as sources for non-physical objects. 2. People just do not see it possible to change your interpretation or do not see the point in this discussion at all and simply continue doing what they have been doing. But even if we would be able to vote, count, elect here in talk mailing list, what authority would that have? In my opinion - close to none. As in most open source/data projects people "vote" with their actions. In this case by creating data in the OpenStreetMap database. And most non-physical data today does not come from physical observation. -- Tomas _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
