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

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

David Earl [mailto:david at frankieandshadow.com] wrote:
>Sent: 12 May 2008 11:06 PM
>To: Andy Allan
>Cc: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists); talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide
>"completeness" tools
>
>On 12/05/2008 22:51, Andy Allan wrote:
>> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:16 PM, David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>>  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.
>>
>> I think it's terribly hard to know when a map is correct and complete,
>> regardless of what you're considering.
>
>There will always be some unintentional errors, but I am confident
>enough of mapping villages and sections of towns systematically to be
>able to assert that I have completed it to that measure of completeness
>- that I have visited every street and got every name possible. (But I
>don't mind using some other word for it if you like, e.g. a confidence
>level or some such).

+1, I don't mind what words we use either.

>
>I think I would have a much harder time being systematic about
>footpaths, especially the rural ones, so I wouldn't have the same degree
>of confidence in my mapping of a footpath network. Maybe if that's what
>I specialised in my confidence would grow, but the concept of junctions
>where you can note the other routes from from need attention seems a
>much less well defined concept for footpaths.
>
>But the main point about footpaths is that using that as the only
>measure would be very dispiriting because it would be so hard to
>complete any reasonable areas to that standard, and completeness at the
>street level is very useful for lots of purposes that doesn't require
>footpaths so is worth showing to consumers.

So maybe we have a list of all the main way types (highway, waterway etc)
and we put a completeness level/confidence level on each one. Too many
though and contributors will loose interest. Perhaps just:

Roads
Cycleways/Bridleways
Footways
Rivers/Major Streams/Canals
Railways

Cheers

Andy

>
>David
>