Similar to what Mikel described as "what Mapbox has set up," I humbly suggest that Facebook offer the wider OSM community (here on OSM-talk is a good place to do so) something similar. As we (here) better understand what, exactly, Facebook's QA processes are as they use (and improve) OSM data, the wider OSM community can offer a critique of them, suggest more robust improvements to workflow (if we see that there are any to offer) and everybody wins: both OSM and Facebook together. If "better data" are the ultimate goal (and aren't they?!) there should be no argument with these suggestions. Facebook might say "our QA process are proprietary" (and they'd be correct), but in the spirit of "Open" being OSM's first name, I hope not.
I say this as a professional software and data quality scientist/engineer/analyst (since the 1980s) and long-time contributor to OSM (for most of its history). It is nearly always true that improvements to "quality process" can be made, especially as these are opened up to the wider scrutiny of a knowledgable and experienced community, as we are here. Indeed, "quality process improvement" is itself correctly a near-constant process. Whether at the level of individual contributor or corporate behemoth, such wider scrutiny in a project like OSM should be par for the course (expected, "business as usual"). SteveA California <remainder redacted for brevity> _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
