<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [Talk-us] OSM Data Quality</title></head><body>
<div>Frederic:<br>
</div>
<div>Validator is an excellent tool, but currently only works with
JOSM. I'd love to see Potlatch and/or iD do something similar.
True, many (most) ignore what Validator may report, and while Errors
are always Errors, Warnings are a bit more subtle and really must be
taken one at a time on a case-by-case basis. Doing the right
thing with a Validator Warning takes experience, and for ultimate data
quality, Validator really needs to be paid attention to much more
often than it is now. However, you may argue that such
entry-level editors do not lend themselves well to such an approach.
We might talk about that, as "done well," it could
work.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I would also vote for experienced OSM importers "looking
over the shoulder" of less experienced contributors as they
import data. We try to do this with the import guidelines, but
there is nothing like an experienced OSM contributor who has faced
(and overcome) difficult choices about data format translations,
exactly what should be in what tags, what to do with fuzzily defined
concepts (like landuse vs. landcover) issues, etc. This really
comes from building good OSM community, where the "Elmers"
(an old ham radio term meaning "those more experienced") are
around to answer questions, mentor and be a good example to the less
experienced. That's a tall order, and a little non-specific, I
know.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The recent "game/goal-oriented" sub-projects
(connectivity, Zorro...) have had fantastic results. We could
use more of these, as their success is proven. Wider attempts
like Operation Cowboy, not so much, however the "cake map"
(http://http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/ ) used in Cowboy is an
exceedingly useful tool when used properly (by an active,
communicative OSM community -- I speak from personal, recent
experience).</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The OSM Inspector tools (http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/) I find
highly valuable. If we could get something like a Zorro/Cowboy
approach to work with the first three tool categories (Geometry,
Routing and Multipolygons), that would be fantastic. This would
have to be really, really well-prepped, and again, it does take
experience to use this tool and "see what is wrong, then fix it
to be right." However, if possible, (I think it is, but it
is admittedly ambitious), imagine the results in data quality!</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Clifford Snow writes:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>First you need to define what good data
quality is and second, you need to collect data to measure data
quality. Once good data is collect then start determining root cause
of the problem.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Most of what I see is anecdotal evidence
of problems. Fixing the cause of those problems is good, but it may
not get at the underlying issues.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>I say +1 to this, but it is nebulous as to be only broadly
helpful. Clifford, care to flesh that out a bit?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The USA OSM community is, as Martijn pointed out, lagging in many
ways compared to those in Europe. I say that not to disrespect
us, but as I point out that we are "behind a few years," we
have a much broader area (one of the most important reasons why,
truthfully), and we have lower population densities (a corollary of,
and another, more specific way of "broader area" just
mentioned). So the traction to get good mappers mapping is
slower to grip and go. We are doing the right things, we just
seem to be getting slower results. But our results are very
good, even excellent in some cases. Yet, per this thread, we
really can do better.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Good thread!</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>SteveA</div>
<div>California</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">I'm working
on a presentation and interested to hear your thoughts. What are the
top 2-3 changes that could improve OSM data quality? That could be
processes, tools, methods, training, peer review, attributes,
etc.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial"
size="-1"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">If this sort
of info is available elsewhere let me know.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial"
size="-1"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">Looking
forward to your answers.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial"
size="-1"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial" size="-1">Many
thanks,</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial"
size="-1"><br></font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Arial"
size="-1">Frederic</font></blockquote>
</body>
</html>