[OSM-talk] Call for verification (Was: Re: VANDALISM !)

[Alan Mackie]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020, 09:28 pangoSE, <pangose at riseup.net> wrote:

> Hi 😀
>
> Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com> skrev: (22 augusti 2020
> 09:55:10 CEST)
> >"It a playground with half-ass quality more than an authoritative and
> >verified source of information (like e.g. Wikipedia)"
> >
> >I am not sure whatever you claim that
> >Wikipedia is
> >"playground with half-ass quality" or
> >"authoritative and verified source of information".
>
> I meant that a verification system does exist in Wikipedia and they now
> require references on all statements to keep up the quality of the articles
> which is sane IMO. We have no such system.
>
We have a method of referencing sources on the changeset. Although I do
think it lacks granularity sometimes.

I am not keen on repeated references to "authoritative and verified sources
of information" as this starts to walk back the primary principle of on the
ground verifiability that OSM relies on.

Additional supporting evidence via Mapillary, OpenStreetCam etc. should
always be welcome, but in OSM the highest grade of source is "=survey" and
I think that is as it should be. OSM has a scope that goes beyond areas
with well funded GIS Departments and friendly licenses.

>
> >OSM would benefit from better verification
> >tools and so on but insult-laden post
> >filed with misunderstandings will not
> >lead towards them.
>
> Sorry if it came across as harsh, I get your point and will try to
> moderate my criticism a little more.
>
> I love OSM and have contributed a lot over the years and recommend it to
> everyone I meet who uses maps.
>
> I just sent a follow up email with a suggestion for implementing such a
> verification system.
>
> I still believe we have data with bad quality in many places (in Sweden).
> I have to fix stuff often when I visit new places apart from all the stuff
> we are missing. We are basically trying to keep up with an ever changing
> surrounding without a good way to indicate our data quality.
>

Data going out if date is just the nature of the beast. It's a perennial
problem with official maps too.


> We can do better, but we need a new system that make it easy for
> contributors to verify our precious data (see my previous email).
>

I think StreetComplete is currently working on a project that helps with
this.


> Cheers
> pangoSE
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200822/d4d690fa/attachment-0001.htm>