[OSM-talk] [Talk-us] Redacting 75, 000 street names contributed by user chdr

john whelan jwhelan0112 at gmail.com
Sun Aug 27 19:27:05 UTC 2017

There are a couple of issues here.  The first are our users, we don't
normally think about them but deleting the names at the wrong point in
OSMAND's cycle could mean missing street names for a period of time.

Second is the problem of some data might be incorrect as a result of the
source deliberately using invalid names.  The very clean way is to delete
then retag.

Verifying with a maproulette challenge would work well if we could trust
all the mappers not to just tick the box either deliberately or by mistake.

Since we have the location of the streets and we have other sources with a
valid name which would probably vary by country could someone join the two
together and verify the name in an automated way?  Leaving a much smaller
list of street names to be verified manually?  I suspect Jamie could wave a
magic wand for Quebec.

I'm not saying we should do one thing or another here.  I'm attempting to
analyse the problem and find a solution that impacts as few people as
possible but gives us clean accurate data at the end of the process.

If we go the verifying route could we take a page out of HOT's process and
have someone verify them someone validate?

Cheerio John

On 27 Aug 2017 3:04 pm, "Nicolás Alvarez" <nicolas.alvarez at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't understand what people mean with 'verifying' objects. We're
> not trying to find factually-incorrect data. The data is legally
> tainted. It's questionable whether looking at the current names
> imported from GMaps, comparing to another source, seeing they match
> and marking them as "verified" will legally change anything. And it's
> impossible to know if people are really verifying anything or just
> blindly marking them as verified.
> I think the only clean way to solve this is to redact and then re-map
> from legal sources.
> --
> Nicolás
> 2017-08-27 14:39 GMT-03:00 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:
> > Steve:
> >
> > thank you for your work. I'll save your list. It appears that others
> > might be eager to do the same, maybe we can find a good workflow for
> > that. I wasn't expecting the community to start working on this
> > pre-redaction but if people prefer that to fixing issues later, it is of
> > course an option. I certainly prefer out-of-band "marking" of verified
> > objects to adding a new tag to each!
> >
> > Tod:
> >
> > On 08/27/2017 07:31 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:
> >> When you reviewed Orange County, how did you do it so quickly? The only
> way I know to go through this is looking at each one, one at a time.
> >
> > I could of course make a page with links to the ways, even per county if
> > that helps, or we could upload the list to some suitable tool. Ian
> > mentioned MapRoulette but I'm not sure if that would make things easier.
> > I'm certainly happy to try. Maybe Martijn would like to chip in about
> > MapRoulette?
> >
> > Bye
> > Frederik
> >
> > --
> > Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > talk mailing list
> > talk at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170827/64e9a754/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list