[Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)
bryce2 at obviously.com
Tue Jul 2 17:53:59 UTC 2013
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
> > This leads to a situation where a mapper is expected to, as he or she
> > the streets, update every object in the database with "yep, this is still
> > there, I walked past it right now"....
> > I know it's a slippery slope argument, and you're only proposing to do
> > for a narrow subset of things - I just wanted to point out that
> > "verification mapping" is not something we do currently.
There is no obligation implied on the part of *anyone else* to participate.
I helped a group release an application to map drinking water sources.
And indeed hundreds of people changed nothing but
"Working=*unknown*" to "Working=*yes/no/needs repair*".
The comments were generally useful as well.
Note that shops rarely re-open in the same location after pulling out: I
would "*disuse:shop*" those until a new tenant arrives.
But broken infrastructure generally does get fixed, which is the focus of
the *operational_status* tag. Broken infrastructure is still physically
present, verifiable, and potentially useful. Given a choice between a
reported working toilet, and a reported broken toilet, I'd head for the
working one. But given no choice I'd try the reported broken one, and if I
found it operational I'd be willing to update the status.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging