[OSM-talk] About my stubbornness

[Barnett, Phillip]

Well, I agree, and I've always (well, in the few weeks that I've been
contributing) uploaded my full GPX tracks before I've done any editing
with JOSM. 
I just wanted to point out that it wasn't a compulsory/required part of
the process at the moment. As you say, perhaps we should be suspicious
of large data dumps minus supporting evidence as GPX tracks.
 
With regard to legal questions of copyright and contaminated data, then
requiring the handover of the raw data should be a sufficient defence of
due diligence to show that someone hasn't just traced the AA road atlas
or some such thing.
 
So how do we 'patrol recent edits' then?
Personally, I'd like to see what's changed recently, particularly in
areas I'm editing. For instance, who's doing the roads in North Wales,
besides me? I see someone's been doing large chunks, and I'd like to get
in touch to avoid duplicating effort...
 
Phillip
________________________________

From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Etienne
Sent: 24 July 2006 13:51
To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] About my stubbornness


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 
	


Please Note:

 

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent 
those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. 
This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to which they are addressed. 
If you have received this email in error, please notify postmaster at itn.co.uk 

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business,
we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems.

Thank You.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20060724/172d52c0/attachment.html>