[OSM-dev] A new take on the "mutable" idea

[Dair Grant]

Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Improve according to what the person editing it thinks - yes. For
> example, and sorry for being pessimistic, I believe that a lot of OSM
> contributors would be perfectly capable to insert a few nodes into an
> administrative border and move them around just to make the line look
> less jagged on the map - "improve" it, as they wold say.
> 
> If their editor would inform them that they are editing the
> administrative border as copied from some official publication, then
> they still *could* edit the border if they e.g. had information about
> said official publication being wrong or outdated, but they would likely
> refrain from editing it otherwise. Which I'd find desirable.

Relating mutability to the source of the data makes much more sense than
some kind of "this is read-only because I, osm user 123, say it should be
and if you change it I'll revert your change" approach.

I wouldn't think twice about improving an obviously coarse way whose source
was Landsat/NPE, adjusting it to match a better-looking GPS trace.

I would think twice about "improving" a way which probably originated from a
GPS, although I'd do it if I had a probably-better GPS trace (e.g., captured
both sides of a road so could see the old trace was off to one side).

I would definitely think twice about improving something which carried a "we
got this data from <official source>, are you sure your source is better?"
warning.

If I had a better official source then replacing the existing way might make
sense, but at least I won't degrade a "bad looking" boundary with something
that looks better but is actually less correct.


-dair
___________________________________________________
dair at refnum.com              http://www.refnum.com/