3 ms·
It's an interesting question of how much flexibility you give people at the beginning vs as a project matures, but I'm looking at the situation with OSM pragmat
by emacsen 9y ago
It's an interesting question of how much flexibility you give people at the beginning vs as a project matures, but I'm looking at the situation with OSM pragmatically, that is to say "What OSM needs to do now", rather than "What they should have done".
The problem of both bad edits and vandalism are very large (much like Google Mapmaker) and other measures we've put in place, such as changeset comments (which I helped develop) and vandalism tools don't seem to cut it.
- RosanaAnaDana 9y agoWhat about some kind of automated approach to validation? A major difference between OSM data and something like wikipedia is that, unlike wikipedia, at least some of the OSM data verifiable. A street somewhere, does exist, in a particular spot. There must be some way to croudsource validation.
- spectre256 9y agoUltimately it comes down to the resources to create such a thing, right? There have been some successes with crowdsourced validations such as Facebook's translation efforts (although I think in that case it was merely a component of the process). And it would rely on a volume of edits that OSM may not have. There may be 1000 people ready to verify the location of the Statue of Liberty, but probably not the location of every building in a remote area being mapped for HOT. Mapbox has built the start of a validation framework, and they have done very cool stuff. Of course then they get criticized for "forking" OSM. There are definitely valid criticisms there, but it seems like there's no way to win.
- IntronExon 9y agoI didn’t mean to distract from the main point of your piece (which was a good read btw), it just made me curious in general. Maybe the only way OSM can work is by treating moderation/curation as the problem to solve?