<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif'>
<p>On 2020-02-12 10:42, Frederik Ramm wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">Hi,<br /><br /> On 2020-02-12 10:28, Colin Smale wrote:
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">Where a boundary coincides with the centre line of<br /> a road for example, and there is a discrepancy in OSM between the<br /> locations of the two, there should be a recognition that the<br /> professionally surveyed locations are more likely to be correct</blockquote>
<br /> I disagree.<br /><br /> What you are requesting here is that we blindly defer to authorities. "I<br /> cannot verify this - but a professional surveyor with his $10k equipment<br /> claims it is so - hence I guess I have to believe it."</div>
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace"> </div>
</blockquote>
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">Indeed, that is exactly what I am suggesting (without the "blindly" bit). You can verify it, just not there and then with your cheap GPS. OSM is built on trust, not mistrust.</div>
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace"> </div>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0">
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">I think this is not how OpenStreetMap should be operating. I can see how<br /> to a professional surveyor the idea must be painful that someone comes<br /> along with their rubbish equipment and makes a change, but we *are* a<br /> project of hobbyists and volunteers, and something that a hobbyist and<br /> volunteer cannot verify ("don't touch this unless you invest $10k in<br /> equipment first!!!") should not be in OSM, and we should not worship<br /> precision that we cannot create ourselves.<br /><br /></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">Exactly this. A hobbyist or volunteer CAN verify an admin boundary (where it is available as open data) - it is independently verifiable. It is objectively of better quality than an OTG observation with a phone.</div>
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace"> </div>
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">The professional surveyor probably couldn't care less. I am thinking of our downstream consumers. Sounds a bit like Brexit...</div>
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace"> </div>
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">But some awareness amongst these hobbyists that some sources are better than others, and their own measurements, even if they are more recent than the contents of OSM, are not necessarily better, would surely not be a bad thing.</div>
</body></html>