[OSM-talk] OSM needs a measure for completeness

[Tom Evans]

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).

Chris Morley wrote:
> 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.

I like the idea, but agree it definitely needs the multiple (documented) 
definitions of completeness.  I'd personally like to reach an annotated map 
of all the footpaths to say what they're like, but this is silly  without getting 
the road coverage in an area first.

Also agree this should be be done before 'verification'.  But maybe the 
annotation for that could piggyback on the same system once it's tested 
and bugs ironed out.  The former would lead toward the latter, I would think. 
Particularly since you couldn't verify anything without a documented definition 
of the claimed completeness anyway.

Tom