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

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 8/22/20 03:12, pangoSE wrote:
> Maybe we should have some kind of system flagging objects that has not
> been edited for x number of years and rate all objects in the database
> according to this?

Even if something is edited, not everything on the object will
necessarily have been verified at the time of that edit. Especially with
armchair mappers fixing errors found by QA tools like Keep Right or
doing single-purpose cleanups on
opening_hours/service_times/collection_times tags, etc.

> This would mean that a data consumer can decide based on the score if
> they want to include the information or not.
> 
> E.g. a high quality map should perhaps not contain objects with a
> revision older than 3 years (and no references or sources)

Some things just don't change over a period of three years. Had it been
added when I started mapping (2012-ish), the house I'm in now (actually,
most houses in this neighborhood) would have had no reason to be edited
over that time.

> Or even better: we could implement a verification system with a log that
> can be queried easily.
> 
> IMPLEMENTATION SUGGESTION:
> 
> GET Openstreetmap.org/api/verifications/
> Lists latest added verifications (outputs 10 entries, &offset can be
> used to get more, &size can be used to output up to 300 entries)
> 
> GET Openstreetmap.org/api/verifications/1234
> Outputs verifications for osmid 1234 with the newest first (outputs 10
> entries, &offset can be used to get more, &size can be used to output up
> to 300 entries)
> 
> POST Openstreetmap.org/api/verifications/1234
> Add a new verification for osmid 1234
> 
> On openstreetmap.org we have a new button for every object "Verify this
> object exists and is correct" which stores the date and userid in the
> database.
> 
> In JOSM we could add the possibility to download verification data for
> all selected objects or from a new option in the download dialog.
> 
> The latest verification date and count of verifications could be made
> available in a separate dump.
> 
> If we had such a system I believe the map data quality could increase
> considerably by making it dead simple to hide hide old unverified data
> from e.g. openstreetmap.org. A high-quality map we can be proud of could
> also give an impetus to local mappers to revisit trails and verify them.
> 
> WDYT?

How big will this database need to be? Who's going to store it and
maintain it?

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn at rushpost.com>
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com