5 ms·

You've hit on the central conundrum with OSM: it's a good enough proposition to make it interesting (free as in beer for many uses, acceptably accurate in many

You've hit on the central conundrum with OSM: it's a good enough proposition to make it interesting (free as in beer for many uses, acceptably accurate in many places etc), but a long long way from being a reliable, authoritative single source of truth. Which - let's be honest - is often true of Wikipedia as well, moderators notwithstanding. Improving OSM is an area of active research I believe, but I'd suggest the scale of the challenge is of a different magnitude than can be met by the type of ideas you mention. Think about something like Google Maps, or in the UK OS MasterMap. Each of these likely has hundreds of millions of R&D invested in tools, techniques, processes and infrastructure behind them, as well as an ongoing budget in the hundreds of millions, and numerous, well organised, skilled, full time staff. There's a critical mass behind such efforts that as yet OpenStreetMap has not been able to muster, which is no criticism of OSM, but just an acknowledgement of the reality of the situation. We're talking about setups that take dedicated organisations years to develop - the history of the Ordnance Survey for example goes back to 1747!

matkoniecz 6y ago
> authoritative single source of truth This is NOT a role for the OSM[0]. In many cases it is the best source of map data, but it will never be the sole single authoritative source of truth. Treating it as one is horrible idea and will end in tears. [0]or Google Maps
- growlist 6y ago
  I agree, see my other comment - it's some organisations that have an expectation of OSM that is unreasonable.
- kqr 6y ago
  Of course, a map will never be the authoritative source of a territory -- hence the saying. But what sets OSM apart from many other mapping projects is its focus on local knowledge and actual people. If people in an area call something by a name, then in OSM, that's its name, even if there's no official name for it, or if nobody really uses the official name.
  - rmc 6y ago
    sometimes people use “authoratative” to mean “what [government] thinks” (e.g. “authorative borders”)
7952 6y ago
Arguably a complete topographic map is an outdated concept. Trying to create a single picture that can fit on one piece of paper excludes a lot of information. And it is not a constraint we have anymore. And often the things you want to map are better mapped seperately in their own dataset. Just consider woodland. Should that block of trees be mapped as individual trees, a block of woodland, or as a linear hedgerow? Different people would answer that question differently. A topographic map forces everyone to have the same answer. I think that citizen mapping should move to focus on particular subjects and themes that the individual is interested in. And try and get closer to the underlying phenomena that is being described.
- growlist 6y ago
  I should have qualified what I said with 'in the enterprise GIS world' or something similar. I'm talking about numerous occasions I've had organisations say they want to use OSM but then complain about the quality, as if (as someone advising them about geospatial) it's something I have control over!

matkoniecz 6y ago

> authoritative single source of truth This is NOT a role for the OSM[0]. In many cases it is the best source of map data, but it will never be the sole single authoritative source of truth. Treating it as one is horrible idea and will end in tears. [0]or Google Maps

growlist 6y ago
I agree, see my other comment - it's some organisations that have an expectation of OSM that is unreasonable.
kqr 6y ago
Of course, a map will never be the authoritative source of a territory -- hence the saying. But what sets OSM apart from many other mapping projects is its focus on local knowledge and actual people. If people in an area call something by a name, then in OSM, that's its name, even if there's no official name for it, or if nobody really uses the official name.
- rmc 6y ago
  sometimes people use “authoratative” to mean “what [government] thinks” (e.g. “authorative borders”)

7952 6y ago

Arguably a complete topographic map is an outdated concept. Trying to create a single picture that can fit on one piece of paper excludes a lot of information. And it is not a constraint we have anymore. And often the things you want to map are better mapped seperately in their own dataset. Just consider woodland. Should that block of trees be mapped as individual trees, a block of woodland, or as a linear hedgerow? Different people would answer that question differently. A topographic map forces everyone to have the same answer. I think that citizen mapping should move to focus on particular subjects and themes that the individual is interested in. And try and get closer to the underlying phenomena that is being described.

growlist 6y ago
I should have qualified what I said with 'in the enterprise GIS world' or something similar. I'm talking about numerous occasions I've had organisations say they want to use OSM but then complain about the quality, as if (as someone advising them about geospatial) it's something I have control over!