[OSM-talk] Quality assurance strategy?
jukka.rahkonen at mmmtike.fi
Thu Jul 31 14:17:26 BST 2008
Frederik Ramm <frederik <at> remote.org> writes:
> What you're speaking of is a huge amount of work if one wants to do
> it properly. I have no doubts that we'll manage to map the world
> once, but will we be able to map it again every 5 years, essentially,
> to verify? I don't know.
It is big amount of annoying work. In a somehow analogous GIS production system
we need one full-time supervisor for every 10-15 digitizers.
> I have been thinking about a system where you do not wait for people
> to take responsibility and say "this way is correct as of <date>,
> signed <name>", instead turn this around: The quality of an area is
> not defined by the number of quality assertions, but by the absence
> of error reports!
> Suppose you have a really easy error reporting mechanism right on our
> central map page, a big fat "report error here" button. Suppose that
> you cleverly analyse log files (and those of mirrors/caches
> obviously), so you know how many people have looked at a certain area
> within the last month (and perhaps even how long they have looked).
> Then you can say: "150 people have looked at the map you're seeing
> without reporting an error". Of course only a fraction of viewers
> will notice an error and only a fraction of those will report it, but
> if the numbers are high enough, you should get reliable statistical
Extra easy reporting system souds good. Perhaps something that could be used
without a need to register, but that still sends nodes with error reports to the
main database so that they could be queried with all the OSM editing tools?
> > OSM quality supervisors
I share the feeling actually. But I bet that you have heard questions like How
complete/accurate/reliable OSM data are, haven't you?
More information about the talk