[OSM-talk] OSM needs a measure for completeness

[Freek]

On Saturday 12 January 2008, Tom Evans 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).
>
> 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, 

Me too.

> but agree it definitely needs the multiple (documented) 
> definitions of completeness. 

Apart from some linear scale (e.g. 1-5 as suggested), I think we might also 
need some more specific approach for the areas covered by the AND and TIGER 
imports. Both will perhaps score 5 on the completeness scale for roads, but 
for example AND imported data needs some work to get it "up to standard" [1]. 
Also, most tracks and cycleways are not present. It would be nice to be able 
to say that for some area that (e.g.)
- road data is from AND and partially verified;
- major tracks and unsurfaced roads are added;
- cycleways are complete;
- amenities are not added.

On the other hand, to be able to more easily render a nice map (overlay?) of 
completeness, it might be better to re-define the linear scale for these 
areas... (Which, I know, is perhaps not very nice.)

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/AND-NL:_Todo
    Dutch todo list regarding data imported from AND. For example all ways not 
accessible by cars are tagged as highway=pedestrian. On a case-by-case basis 
this needs to be changed to e.g. footway, cycleway or left pedestrian.

-- 
Freek