[OSM-talk] OSM needs a measure for completeness

[Robert (Jamie) Munro]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Chris Morley 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.

Rather than creating special ways, just to show completeness, why not
mark the ways that are already there with weather or not they are
completely connected. I.e. I know that all the roads and footpaths that
connect to my road are on the map, so I could put a tag on the road
saying complete_connected=roads,footpaths or something. We could then
make a map with all the roads that are marked as not completed coloured.

Also, if we could make a tag for a road that you have seen one end of
but haven't mapped down, that would be useful. Some people use 3
unconnected nodes as a sort of ... symbol on the map, but this doesn't
work very well. A short way that was tagged specially would indicate to
people that that area needed surveying because the roads weren't
complete. If a road had these for all the roads joining it, I would mark
it as complete in the scheme above.

Robert (Jamie) Munro
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHiR9Lz+aYVHdncI0RAi1UAKCpO0t8ItrMQL3n8ZSAr6nlpaJcDACgjdVb
gBtFlc6IFQUKOHOrszPSC3Q=
=isju
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----