[OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide "completeness" tools

[David Earl]

On 12/05/2008 20:02, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
> David Earl wrote:
>> Sent: 12 May 2008 7:10 PM
>> To: inge at lysator.liu.se
>> Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide
>> "completeness" tools
>>
>> On 12/05/2008 18:06, Inge Wallin wrote:
>>> On Monday 12 May 2008 18:06:59 Chris Morley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Starting with a single level of completeness makes sense, but I think it
>>>> should be public roads, named where feasible.
>>> I have a different view.  I think we should have a leveled scheme from
>> the
>>> beginning.  I suggest the following:
>>>
>>> Level 1: All the highways (using OSM lingo) usable by cars within an area
>> are
>>> mapped
>>> Level 2: All highways are mapped and named
>>> Level 3: All highways down to cycleways are mapped (and named if
>> feasible).
>>
>> That's a very car-centric view of the world. Why "down" to cycleways?
>> Who are you to say something usable by a car is more important than
>> something usable by a bike?
> 
> I was actually going to argue that even the footways should be on. That's
> why I was going for the tile approach because I felt that building up from
> little pieces was more logical that an all encompassing area. If you have a
> few footpaths in your area not completed then its not really complete,
> whereas small tile can be "signed off" and holes wouldn't matter, they would
> just get filled in later as you or someone else gets to them.

I wasn't being entirely serious.

I think it is terribly hard to know whether you have all the footpaths, 
and I think we'd hardly ever mark anywhere "complete" if we did that.

So I think Inge is right - we need different measures for our own use. 
But on the public map, all streets with names seems a pretty good 
achievable and useful thing to show.

David