[OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software

Marc Gemis marc.gemis at gmail.com
Thu Oct 16 06:28:08 UTC 2014


IMHO the best way to avoid problems in that spot is to do what other
suggested: add the footpath between the 2 street (thereby fixing the
navigation for pedestrians) and/or adding the small piece of landuse=grass
+ the tree.
I assume nobody will remove that just to fix a problem reported by an
QA-site. The site might not even report the problem (as there is a footpath
between the two and not an empty space)

I don't know what is worse, a local mapper that does not add the footpath
between the two streets or a armchair mapper that connects the two. The map
is incorrect in both cases...
The best way to "document" why 2 streets are not connected is by mapping
the obstacle between them or the other type of road between them. That
should exclude the spot from detection algorithms.

just my .5 cent



On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:

>  Ian
> I will make & reinforce my point of view vehemently, especially when
> misuse of Google is implied, & definitely when repeated amendments are to
> the detriment of the database.
> Regards
> Dave F.
> On 14/10/2014 17:22, Ian Dees wrote:
>  On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
>> On 13/10/2014 17:18, Aaron Lidman wrote:
>>> Looking at the imagery I can see how it might be thought they connect,
>>> especially when none of us are using google maps for verification, right?
>> Wrong. I was using Streetview to confirm to the forum what I already knew
>> - that the roads don't join. I don't need Google as I went there & did a
>> proper visual survey, whereas your employee just "thought" they "might"
>> join. This armchair guesswork is bad for the OSM database: If you're unsure
>> if an edit will improve the quality of the map - please don't make it.
>> I use the validation software you mention, but only to correct data that
>> I have first hand knowledge of & never to amend something in another time
>> zone where I've never been. Even when I do use them, I stop to think
>> whether it is an accurate error report & not blindly fix it assuming it
>> must be true.
>  A reminder to watch our language on the list. Like Frederik said, assume
> good intentions and don't use hyperbole or "loud words" to force your point.
>  Thanks,
> Your friendly list moderator
> ------------------------------
>    <http://www.avast.com/>
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> <http://www.avast.com/> protection is active.
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20141016/b22fc29b/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list