[OSM-talk] What is OSM for? (was: Re: Ground truth for non-physical objects)
ajt1047 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 12 13:44:17 UTC 2018
On 12/12/2018 13:05, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> ... I do not imagine how would it be possible to
> capture all that "on the ground" without an army of mappers devoted
> specifically to this very boring and uninteresting but useful class -
If you're looking for a project that essentially mirrors "official" data
without actually checking that its valid then OpenStreetMap might not be
the project for you.
What makes OSM unque and better than the alternatives is that the data
in it is, where possible, verified by people on the ground. In a sense
it's the "anti-wikipedia" - original research is not just allowed it's
positively encouraged. Only this original research will catch corner
cases like the house that has a name (but that name isn't in any way
"official") that still gets mail delivered to it using that name (like
the house that I'm sat in right now, actually).
Obviously different OSM communities in different regions differ over how
much they want to rely on "official" data* - indeed some different
regions within the same country have argued about this in the past, but
the general view, which I think we can see from the balance of the posts
in this thread, is that most people back the "on the ground" principle -
if there's a housename that looks like looks like a house name, it's a
house name, even if it's not in an "official" list.
* for the avoidance of doubt here I'm talking about "official data"
outside of any conflict or dispute.
More information about the talk