On Mon, Jul 30, 2012, at 19:44, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > > this logic is completely flawed. humans are not robots working on a list > of problems to solve. As you learned from your experiment there is a > inconsistency and now you can work to fix it. This is how osm works and > it is great that you help to make it better.
> the more redundancy the more > automated checks can be done to find errors. > Sorry if I am being too harsh, I am not trying to be mean or anything but... I don't understand how this sentence would be true in any context. More redundancy, especially redundancy in data entered by humans, simply invites more opportunity for errors. So of course QA tools will find more errors - simply because there is more data to maintain! > > If I understand your points correctly and follow the logic - introducing > > "ref" on nodes would make users triple check the data and consuming > > software would have a third source of ref data which would be better. > > > > no, that's again wrong logic. there is a lot of gray between black and > withe. > Humans will just stop being interested if you flood them with stupid > cumbersome work. It's all about motivation and it's not possible to > motivate by offering senseless challenges without any reward. > I agree completely. And I'm not trying to ruin that by defining some "tagging by committee" scheme etc. It's just about improving documentation, guidelines, infrastructure to help people world more efficiently on OSM data. Paweł > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
