[OSM-talk] About my stubbornness

[Etienne]

In the same way that it is considered bad form to add content to Wikipedia
without referencing your sources, it should also be considered bad form to
add information to OSM that cannot be verified.

In the case of ways, uploaded tracklogs are a first class form of
verification.  Landsat images are another acceptable form (although of
variable quality).  For streetnames I always tag my ways with the file name
of the photograph that I took (and these are accessible on-line).

In addition to the obvious copyright defence, nodes and ways that are
supported by documentary evidence are more credible to potential users of
OSM than if they just mysteriously "got there".  The more supporting
documentary evidence the better.

Should we be starting to think about patrolling recent edits?  We should be
suspicious of large amounts of new data that does not have any supporting
evidence.

Etienne


On 7/24/06, Nick Whitelegg <nick at hogweed.org> wrote:
>
> On Monday 24 Jul 2006 12:31, Barnett, Phillip wrote:
> > But if you use a tool such as JOSM, it's not required that you upload
> > GPX tracklogs, so they are not necessarily to be found as evidence of
> > bona fide self-gathered data.
>
> The recommendation though, even if you use a standalone editor to create
> your
> nodes, segments and ways, is to upload your gpx via the web interface *in
> addition*.
>
> Nick
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20060724/70839e94/attachment.html>