On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Paweł Paprota <ppa...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > > 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! > > there are different types of errors and you focus on one only. I am not going to argue with examples or explanations. If you don't want to see it you won't see it. The concept of OSM (and any crowd source project) is in no way similar to traditional knowledge collection. And for consumers it's even more different. It's a social project not a technical one. Errors are a key ingredient to keep the ball running. The number in the DB is not important. A data consumer has to decide what data is useful and try to make the best possible use. The number of errors remaining in the consumer application is what is important at the end.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
