[Talk-GB] Road Names Quarterly Project
colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Tue Feb 17 11:46:41 UTC 2015
A better paradigm is that the data should be "independently verifiable
from open sources." If the sign is wrong, it is wrong. Propagating that
error does not change that by magical thinking.
"Ground truth" is of course no good if there is nothing on the ground -
such as boundary lines, postcodes and even "source=local_knowledge". If
there is no sign at all, should we remove the name from OSM, even though
we, the local authority and Royal Mail agree that it has a certain name?
This "ground truth" business needs a bit of nuance now and then. It's
not black and white - in between there are many (50?) shades of grey,
where common sense needs to be factored in.
On 2015-02-17 11:48, Jonathan Harley wrote:
> On 17/02/15 10:03, Colin Smale wrote:
>> It's only "correct" because that's the frame of reference you have chosen in this case. The local authority decides what a street is officially called. How that is transposed to signs sometimes introduces errors, and these errors are sometimes volatile. The OS is not the source of the official name either is it?
> The frame of reference we use is "ground truth" - what is actually there in the physical world.
> Also, the signage at the end of the street is what visitors and delivery drivers see, so it's surely the most practically useful thing to have on a map.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB