[OSM-talk] OSM needs a measure for completeness

[Tom Evans]

graham wrote:
> Surely completeness is relative to purpose? 

Sort of - I think you need definitions in terms of content rather than purpose, 
just for clarity.  But they could obviously be aimed at a purpose.

When I said 'multiple' definitions I definitely had in mind separately defined 
levels like Chris said below.  There might be a rough ordering, but nothing like 
a 1-5 scale.  If, in the future, somebody wants to add field boundaries, and 
somebody else thinks marking all the shops is more important, we don't want 
to argue over which goes in level 6!

Chris Morley wrote:

> 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.