[OSM-talk] Just facts?

moltonel 3x Combo moltonel at gmail.com
Thu Jun 19 22:45:32 UTC 2014


You cite a lot of good examples of OSM data that are not "pure binary
facts", and I could think of a few more. But I'm not sure what the
intent of this demonstration is. Open the eyes of the "OSM is pure
facts" crowd ? Debate whether this is a trait of OSM we want to
minimise ? Figure out ways to spot and/or limit subjective data ?

I think it's safe to say that the community wants the data to be as
factual as possible (ignoring the presumably rare intentionally biased
contributors here). Cue the endless discussions and docs that we write
to specify how to map this or that in ever greater details.

I'd love to improve the process of documenting interpretation margins
away, but I'm afraid it'll always remain very laborious.

It'd be arguably even more important to be able to spot "bias
vandalism" but, appart from the preventative measures that are being
discussed in another thread (declaring paid contributions, which is
important but weak in scope/enforcability), I can't think of a better
tool than our current "many eyes" strategy.



More information about the talk mailing list