Nobody claims OpenStreetMap data contains no mistakes. Are you really expecting that we will be shocked by proof that some data somewhere is wrong?
I would be able to post one mail per minute with examples of serious mistakes, forever - even after my death, as it would be fairly easy to automate. If something is wrong then fix it or create note or switch to other data source (that WILL contain wrong/inaccurate data - or will be very expensive and cover some limited area). Or ignore it. Please stop posting about every single inaccurate data in OSM that you managed to notice. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes are designed as tool allowing to describe incorrect data that someone is unable or unwilling to fix (and yes, we have thousands of reports of mistakes) Aug 22, 2020, 10:12 by pang...@riseup.net: > Here is yet another example of bad data in our database: > > -------- Originalmeddelande -------- > Från: Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> > Skickat: 22 augusti 2020 00:33:24 CEST > Till: talk@openstreetmap.org > Ämne: Re: [OSM-talk] Use of OSM data without attribution > > Curious anecdote: some AllTrails user apparently looked up a phone > number for OSM US and called up Maggie. Turns out the complaint was > about a trail that I originally mapped *blush*. In my defense, that was > 9 years ago, I haven't been to that part of town much since I moved, and > nobody else updated the trail, which has since disappeared. > > Here is the changeset in case you're interested: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89419938 > > Martijn > -- > > Maybe we should have some kind of system flagging objects that has not been > edited for x number of years and rate all objects in the database according > to this? > > This would mean that a data consumer can decide based on the score if they > want to include the information or not. > > E.g. a high quality map should perhaps not contain objects with a revision > older than 3 years (and no references or sources) > > Or even better: we could implement a verification system with a log that can > be queried easily. > > IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTION: > > GET Openstreetmap.org/api/verifications/ > Lists latest added verifications (outputs 10 entries, &offset can be used to > get more, &size can be used to output up to 300 entries) > > GET Openstreetmap.org/api/verifications/1234 > Outputs verifications for osmid 1234 with the newest first (outputs 10 > entries, &offset can be used to get more, &size can be used to output up to > 300 entries) > > POST Openstreetmap.org/api/verifications/1234 > Add a new verification for osmid 1234 > > On openstreetmap.org we have a new button for every object "Verify this > object exists and is correct" which stores the date and userid in the > database. > > In JOSM we could add the possibility to download verification data for all > selected objects or from a new option in the download dialog. > > The latest verification date and count of verifications could be made > available in a separate dump. > > If we had such a system I believe the map data quality could increase > considerably by making it dead simple to hide hide old unverified data from > e.g. openstreetmap.org. A high-quality map we can be proud of could also give > an impetus to local mappers to revisit trails and verify them. > > WDYT? > > Cheers > pangoSE > > > pangoSE <pang...@riseup.net> skrev: (22 augusti 2020 09:32:09 CEST) > >> Hi >> >> 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk <talk@openstreetmap.org> skrev: (22 augusti 2020 >> 03:06:37 CEST) >> >> >>> >>> Also there is no wiki on unverified edits. >>> >>> >> >> In OSM we don't yet have an established system for verification or accurate >> machine readable references for the data to my knowledge. >> >> This means the whole database is basically just a mess of biased data that >> one of our millions of editors thought should be included. Most objects have >> very few revisions and we have no idea about the overall quality or >> correctness. It a playground with half-ass quality more than an >> authoritative and verified source of information (like e.g. Wikipedia). >> Building upon it can lead to strange things. E.g. >> >> https://www.nyteknik.se/popularteknik/mystisk-jatteskrapa-dok-upp-i-flygsimulator-6999771>> >> (building:levels=212 was entered erroneously and committed to the database >> without any kind of QA follow-up. If someone knows the osmid I would like to >> know how long this error was present in OSM) >> >> We should really fix this and start a verification effort after implementing >> a sane verification model. >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >>
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
