[OSM-dev] Data source for robot

Peter Budny peterb at gatech.edu
Wed Oct 13 02:17:50 BST 2010


Jonathan Bennett <openstreetmap at jonno.cix.co.uk> writes:

>  On 12/10/2010 20:54, Alan Millar wrote:
>> You can't equate the need for improvement in the data with the method
>> used to improve it.  Well, apparently you can, but it is a specious
>> argument.
> Saying that data needs some improvement doesn't prove that a
> particular method *will* improve it either.

It also doesn't prove that it /won't/.  Several people seem to be
dismissing the proposal out of hand just because it involves a robot.

>> People need to stop shooting down every automated edit without
>> listening to the reasoning.
> Are you willing to check, by hand, every single change made by this
> bot? If not, how can you be sure it hasn't created as many problems as
> it has solved?

If you look at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)/State_Highway_Relations
you will see a dozen or so examples of partially-completed road
relations.  This is precisely the work I'm proposing to automate.  The
robot will not delete or modify existing data, only add new relations
for routes that have not been done yet.

If the robot makes conservative assumptions, it will inevitably leave
gaps that need to be filled in by human judgment.  The incomplete
relations it would create, then, would be no different from what we
already have, except most of the tedious work would already be done.

> That's the problem with automated edits -- people
> assume they're 100% correct when experience has shown this not to be
> true.

Who's assuming anything?  I put forth a proposal, and I've gotten a lot
of "don't do it" but not a lot of "here's why you shouldn't".  If I've
made a poor assumption, please point out the specific part of my
proposal that is weak so I can try to improve it.
-- 
Peter Budny  \
Georgia Tech  \
CS PhD student \



More information about the dev mailing list