[OSM-talk] Detrimental validation software

[Dave F.]

Hi Marc

I had a footpath between them.

IMO users should be responsible for their own actions. Users should map 
what they believe to be useful or important & objects with little 
benefit just to prevent others adding errors. Especially when those 
errors aren't "mistakes", but guesses made with aforethought.

I had another such edit from the same user yesterday. I asked him to 
review & he's reverted which I'm grateful for, but it can't continue 
like this. OSM users/editors can't be expected to be a validator's 
validator.

I completely disagree that not adding a footpath makes the map 
incorrect. Have you mapped every single physical object in your area?

To make the first edit even worse, a user from Iceland, presumably using 
the Streetview image, has added grass, & other entities!

Cheers
Dave F.


On 16/10/2014 07:28, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Dave,
>
> 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
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com 
> <mailto: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
>>     <mailto: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 <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20141016/8b516af6/attachment.html>