[OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki

[Alan Mintz]

At 2010-05-31 10:57, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Anthony wrote:
> > By these definitions, something that is able to be confirmed as true or
> > false in an official online source is actually *more* verifiable than
> > something written on a street sign in a place where Google Street View
> > has not yet visited.  It certainly is verifiable, and it is not
> > necessarily "on the ground".
>
>Something that is available from an official online source but not
>verifiable on the ground should not - in my personal opinion - be
>included in OSM.

When something looks "suspicious", though, and you find out that the sign 
is wrong, I believe it is reasonable to note that for recheck, in case the 
sign gets fixed. I have found such errors and told the relevant 
authorities, all of whom indicate that they will fix the sign. I use name, 
loc_name, official_name, note, and FIXME, to handle the various names and 
notes, usually using name for the signed name (or the "more correct" of 
them, if the signage is inconsistent).


>But OSM is not a "mirror" for official data.

I suppose then, it is a mirror of the mirror of official data (that being 
the signage), which doesn't sound good, does it?


>I don't want data that
>OSMers cannot work with; such data would only be in OSM for ease of
>retrieval, and I don't view OSM as some data dumpster for the world's
>geodata.

Agreed. Most bulk imports to an existing mapped area should be discouraged. 
Even TIGER09, which looked much better than earlier data, still has 
significant problems. I only use it in small areas of new development, and 
even then, it takes a lot of work to connect with existing data.

--
Alan Mintz <Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.net>