[OSM-talk] OSM needs a measure for completeness

[80n]

On Jan 12, 2008 3:48 PM, Chris Morley <c.morley at dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

> David Earl wrote:
>  > I've said before and I'll say again: we need a way of
>  > asserting "this area is complete" (for one or more
>  > definitions of completeness).
>
> Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
>  > The only way that we are going to individually or
>  > collectively state the completeness of a specific area
>  > is to carry out a verification process. It doesn't have
>  > to be done by third parties or even different contributors
>  > but it does need to be done by someone.
>  > We need a simple tag to display verification, perhaps
>  > the username and a date, say verification=blackadder_20080111
>  > or similar.
>
> Martin Trautmann wrote:
>  > Is OSM that far that we need verification and quality ensurance?
>  > We are still far from completeness, which might be a primary goal.
>
> I have started a new thread with a measure for completeness in the title
> because this is an important topic for OSM. But the response to the
> recent posts quoted above, and my raising of it last July, has been only
> luke-warm.
>
> I wonder whether this is because "completeness" is associated in
> people's minds too closely with verification. As Andy has describes it
> in the (incomplete) quote above, verification involves individual
> accountability - "I personally accept responsibility for the accuracy of
> this data". I don't think this is suitable for OSM at the moment; it may
> be necessary in the future if and when OSM becomes a serious alternative
> to commercial suppliers - but not yet. I, and probably others, are eager
> to make their contributions of as high quality as possible, but are wary
> about making a public and personal commitment to their accuracy.
>
> As is the case for all other mapping information, an assertion of
> completeness should only imply the best endeavours of the contributor,
> not a guarantee of 100% correctness. If you have ridden round a housing
> estate systematically and collected all the required information, you
> can reasonably say the area covered is complete. With this
> understanding, completeness would become part of routine mapping. It
> would encourage a systematic approach and the collection of any missed
> information.
>
> A possible detailed approach is as follows. A completeness boundary
> would be modelled on coastline: it would enclose an area, but would
> consist of many (ordinary) ways, with the completed area on the right.
> They would be tagged with one (or possibly more) definitions of
> completeness like "major roads", "public roads", "public paths", which
> would be defined on a wiki page. Boundary ways would be moved or added
> on a day-to-day basis by anybody with local knowledge. An area might
> even have holes in it.  Somebody would provide an overview map showing
> completed areas, and its animation would feature in most presentations
> on OSM.
>
> OSM really needs a measure for local completeness to demonstrate its
> progress externally. I hope enough people can be roused to discuss, and
> hopefully agree, the principles, before deciding on an implementation.
>

In a sense I'm already doing this.  The very last thing I do when I've
completed an area is to add landuse=residential (only where appropriate, of
course).  I could easily add complete=level-n to this landuse boundary.

80n




>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080112/7b9efde4/attachment.html>